THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.3291 of 2008 Between:
Sree Hanuman Filling Station, rep. by its Proprietor Mrs. P. Nagaveera Sesha Prema.
PETITIONER AND
1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Divisional Office: 3-6-436 to 438, II Floor, Naspur House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Divisional Manager, and another.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the letter dated 15.02.2008 of the Assistant Manager (RS), Hyderabad-II, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the 2nd respondent herein. By virtue of the said letter, the 2nd respondent suspended the sales and supplies to the petitioner outlet.
2. Heard Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is as under:
The petitioner was awarded dealership in the year 2005. On 18.01.2008, the 2nd respondent inspected the petitioner outlet and conducted density test of MS, XP, HSD and XM and also the stock variation test etc., of the stocks, which were supplied on 12.01.2008. After the said inspection on 18.01.2008, the petitioner was supplied with stock of nine loads of both MS and HSD. Subsequently, on 15.02.2008 the 2nd respondent inspected the petitioner outlet once again and prepared the retail outlet inspection and analysis report and served a copy of the report on the husband of the petitioner Sri P.V.V.Ramakrishna Reddy. The said report shows that both the density as well as stocks were within the permissible limits of variation and does not show any adulteration. However, the 2nd respondent issued letter dated 15.02.2008, stating that the MS sample collected by him on 18.01.2008 failed lab (RON) test andsuspended the sales and supplies to the petitioner outlet and sealed the dispensing units and underground tanks. It is averred in the writ affidavit that both on the inspection report as well as the letter dated 15.02.2008 the petitioner’s husband endorsed that report lab (RON) test, based on which sales were suspended, was not given and they have no knowledge of failure of test. Challenging the above said letter dated 15.02.2008 the present writ petition came to be filed.
4. This Court on 18.02.2008 directed interim suspension of the impugned letter, initially, for a period of two weeks and eventually on 10.06.2008 the said interim order was extended until further orders. Responding to the Rule Nisi, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.21571 of 2003, dated 15.10.2003. It is further submitted that the impugned action on the part of the respondent-authorities is a clear infraction of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent, who passed the impugned order, has absolutely no power either to search or seize the stocks. It is also contended by the learned counsel that there is no justification on the part of the respondent in passing the impugned order as the respondent-authorities failed to adhere to the mandatory clauses under Motor Spirit and High Spead Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractice) Order, 2005. It is also submitted that the respondent-authorities failed to furnish the lab (RON) report pertaining to the samples taken during the course of inspection on 18.01.2008.
6. Even though a number of contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the principal ground urged by the learned counsel is that the subject matter in the writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.21571 of 2003. A copy of the said order is placed on record by the learned counsel. A perusal of the said order passed by this Court in the said writ petition clearly discloses that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in the said writ petition and this Court in the operative portion of the said order held as under:
“It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that as on today the entire stocks of MS & HSD which were supplied on 17.09.2003 were sold out. He also submits that the results of the tests are not yet confirmed and the enquiry is yet to be conducted for taking necessary action against the petitioner and under the circumstances the issuance of the impugned letter dated 11.10.2003 directing the petitioner to stop sales of both MS & HSD is unwarranted.
Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation also agrees that when once the stocks are sold out there is no necessity of issuing the impugned letter. He further states that the impugned letter was issued only with a precaution that the petitioner may not sell the MS & HSD Oil which are not in tune with the required specifications of the company which may bring in bad reputation to the respondent Corporation. However, learned counsel stated that the respondent Corporation will not stop supply of stocks to the petitioner unless and until the enquiry is completed and action is taken against the petitioner.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter dated 11.10.2003 is set aside. No order as to costs.”
7. In the instant case also there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the fact that subsequent to taking samples on 18.01.2008 the respondent-Corporation supplied nine loads of stocks on various dates from 18.01.2008 to 13.02.2008. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the principle laid down in the above referred judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present writ petition.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter dated 15.02.2008 of the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
25th November, 2014 Js.