HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30750 of 2014 Date:15.10.2014 Between:
M/s Sai Durga Indane Services, reptd by its Proprietor-Smt Maddukuri Jaya W/o Late Srinivasa Rao And:
The Govt of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and two others.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms V.Padmaja Reddy . Petitioner . Respondents Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Thoom Srinivas The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Roc.No.90/2014/C5, dated 07.07.2014, of respondent No.2 and order in Ref.No.VAO:249/MDG/2014-15, dated 19.09.2014, of respondent No.3.
I have heard Ms V.Padmaja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation, which is represented by the Chief Area Manager, Marketing Division, who is implealded as respondent No.3.
The petitioner is an LPG distributor of Indian Oil Corporation in Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. Based on a newspaper report, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice on 18.06.2014 to the petitioner and also to similarly situated dealers in the area, wherein it was alleged that all the dealers have been indulging in collection of higher amounts over and above the prescribed delivery charges. The petitioner has submitted its explanation to the said show cause notice, wherein while denying that it has been collecting higher charges, it has informed that it has been educating the consumers, by requesting them not to pay tips to the delivery boys, through distribution of pamphlets, etc. Some of the consumers have been paying tips to the delivery boys by availing additional services from them, such as carrying the cylinders to upper floors, etc. The petitioner assured that in future, it will ensure that extra amounts by way of tips are not collected by its delivery boys.
By order, dated 07.07.2014, respondent No.2 has forfeited to the Government a sum of Rs.10,000/- from out of the petitioner's security deposit treating the irregularity as the first instance and taking a lenient view. Following the said order, respondent No.3 has issued proceedings, dated 19.09.2014, imposing a penalty of Rs.52,500.09 paise under Clause-2.2.7 of Major Irregularities and General Guidelines Clause-V.
As regards order, dated 07.07.2014, passed by respondent No.2, on a careful consideration thereof, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Though the petitioner has denied the allegation that it has been collecting higher amounts than the prescribed delivery chargers from the consumers, it has, however, candidly admitted that its delivery boys have been collecting extra amounts by way of tips from some of the consumers. In my opinion, the petitioner being a distributor is vicariously liable for the misconduct of its employees/servants. Obviously, having been convinced that the petitioner has itself not indulged in the malpractice, respondent No.2 has let it off by imposing a minor penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Imposition of such penalty is certainly a deterrent on the distributors and will drive them to take all necessary precautions to prevent the recurrence of malpractices by their delivery boys. Therefore, it is necessary in public interest to impose such penalties on the distributors.
Corporation, stated that under the Dealer agreement, the petitioner has a remedy of referring the dispute to arbitration.
In view of the availability of this remedy, which is provided as an internal mechanism for resolution of disputes between the Corporation and its distributors, I find it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the said remedy. The petitioner is permitted to raise a dispute in writing before respondent No.3. Within four weeks from the date of raising such dispute, respondent No.3 shall appoint an Arbitrator and refer the dispute to him. The payment, if any, made by the petitioner in the meantime shall be subject to the result of the arbitration proceedings.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.38443 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
15th October, 2014 DR