IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27854 of 2014 Between:
M/s. Orugallu Filling Station, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Dealer, Hunter Road, Subedari, Hanamakonda, Warangal District, Telangana State, A Firm Rep. by its Partner, G. Prabhakar Rao, S/o. G. Papa Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Hanamkonda, Warangal District.
.. Petitioner AND Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Retd. Officer at G/G, Aliwarvari Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Rep. by its Executive Director & another .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27854 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner is a retail outlet involved in selling of petroleum products of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The petitioner’s premises was inspected by the Officers of the Mobile Laboratory of the first respondent Corporation on 25.03.2014 and collected samples from the premises of the petitioner. In the Mobile Laboratory testing, the samples are found to be not according to the specifications with respect to K. Viscosity at 400C. Three samples were collected on that day, one sample was tested by the Mobile Laboratory, one sample was retained with the petitioner and one sample was kept with the respondents, which is called as a Depot sample. The petitioner requested for testing the sample retained with the petitioner. The petitioner sample and the Depot sample was tested on 07.07.2014 and insofar as the petitioner’s sample is concerned, the test conducted was found to be within the parameters, whereas the depot sample again failed. Thus, samples tested by the Mobile Laboratory as well as the sample of the Depot Laboratory failed, whereas the sample of the petitioner was within the parameters. After the testing of samples, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.08.2014 informing the petitioner as to why action should not be taken for imposing penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- and to suspend sales and service of all products for 30 days, as prescribed in Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.08.2014. It appears that so far, no further orders are passed by the respondent Corporation.
2. This writ petition is instituted contending that since the samples were not properly taken, insofar as the samples tested before the Mobile Laboratory and the sample retained with the respondent which were tested on 07.07.2014, have failed, but whereas the sample retained with the petitioner was properly collected and, therefore, the test results have come up properly. When the test result of the petitioner’s sample collected was within the specifications, the question of taking further action would not arise. Whereas, the respondents are now seeking to suspend the sales which would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has been operating the retail outlet for 35 years and at no point of time such an allegation was levelled. Any action taken now even before final orders are passed would cause disrepute to the petitioner.
3. As evident from the documents filed in the writ petition, initially when the sample was tested by the Mobile Laboratory, the petitioner was informed that the result of the test would be imposing a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and suspending the sales for 30 days. On a request made by the petitioner, further test was conducted and the test results are as stated above. After the test results, a notice was issued. Responding to the said notice, reply was filed by the petitioner. Thus, the matter is at the stage of consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It appears that no further orders are passed. At this stage, it is premature for this Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the respondents’ action calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation on the view taken by the respondent Corporation regarding the test results of the samples. It is also premature for the petitioner to ask a mandamus to interject the respondent Corporation from passing an order of suspension of sales as any decision taken by an instrument of State can be gone into only when a decision is taken and writ jurisdiction cannot be extended to interject a decision making process and to stop a decision to be taken. Therefore, it is premature to entertain the writ petition and grant the relief as prayed.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is always open to work out his remedies as and when a final order is passed in pursuant to the show cause notice issued on 20.08.2014. The petitioner is also entitled to raise all pleas that are open to him. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 18th September, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27854 of 2014 Date: 18th September, 2014 KL