IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.14531 of 2014 Between:
M/s. Pavan Service Station Indian Oil Dealers, Rep. by Proprietrix Ms. B. Lakshmi Madhura Vani Near Telephone Tower Narayanapuram (v), Kalluru (M), Khammam District.
.. Petitioner AND The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Divisional Office, G.V.R. Towers, 3rd Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Ring Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Rep. by Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager.
.. Respondent The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.14531 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner is a petroleum retail outlet. On 24.01.2014, the officials of the respondent Corporation inspected retail outlet and collected six samples of MS from the dispensing unit. After all the six samples were collected, two were retained by the petitioner retail outlet and one sample was forwarded for RON (Research Octane Number) Test to the Chennai Laboratory and the other for Clinical Testing at Kondapally Laboratory. The Clinical Test at Kondapally Laboratory met the specifications. However, the sample test conducted in Chennai Laboratory found not meeting the specifications with respect to RON test. On the ground that the specifications of RON Test were not met, by order, dated 24.02.2014, the supplies to the petitioner were suspended. While suspending the supplies, the petitioner was also called upon to submit his explanation on the allegations levelled therein. The petitioner filed representations bringing to the notice of the respondent Corporation that the samples were not collected from the operating unit. Two were collected on non-operative unit and, therefore, the result of the Lab Testing cannot be acted upon and requested for issuance of obtaining of fresh samples and subjecting the samples for testing in the Laboratories. This writ petition is instituted alleging that in spite of a request made for taking fresh samples, without considering the same supplies are suspended without any justification.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that the suspension is illegal and the samples were not properly collected, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs.
[1]
JAGANNATH AND Co. AND OTHERS .
3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that samples were properly collected from the dispensing unit which was operational. At the time of collection of samples, no objection was raised, but an objection was raised much later. The second sample collected on the day was kept with the petitioner. The samples are still lying with the petitioner and the respondent Corporation is willing to send those samples for testing to the Laboratory if the petitioner makes a request.
4. At present, the order under challenge is only order of suspension of supplies. Power is vested in the competent authority to suspend supplies if prima facie material prove that the dispensing units have not discharged the petroleum products properly and that the samples collected from the dispensing unit, on testing in the Laboratory prove that the samples are not meeting the specifications. As evident from the order impugned, the sample tested before the Chennai Laboratory has not met with the specifications with respect to RON Test.
5. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the samples were not tested in any Government Laboratory and were tested in a company’s Laboratory. Therefore, in order to satisfy the conscience of the dealer about the authenticity of the tests so conducted, the Guidelines contemplate that on the request of the dealer, the tests could be conducted in his presence. As noticed above, so far the petitioner has not made a request for testing the samples kept with him. The issue whether the samples were properly collected and whether it is necessary to send the samples retained with the petitioner for testing to the Laboratory and what consequences would follow depend on the explanation submitted by the petitioner and an appropriate decision taken by the competent authority. Therefore, I see no error in the decision of suspending the supplies to the petitioner.
6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The observations made in the writ petition are only regarding suspension of supplies. The authorities shall consider objections raised by the petitioner uninfluenced by the above observations with reference to taking further action as required by the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005. 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: 7th October, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.14531 of 2014 Date: 7th October, 2014
[1] 2013 (5) ALD 78 (SC)