The writ petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from passing any final order in pursuance of its letter Ref.No.M.42 44 dated 22.05.2004 till the respondent deputes some of the officials to test the samples that has been entrusted to the petitioner on 24.09.2003 when the product has been supplied to the petitioner and also on 27.09.2003 when the samples have been taken from the outlet by the officials of the respondent Corporation and the samples of which he was entrusted to the petitioner for verification for sending the same to any other laboratory for testing the same as requested by the petitioner through his reply letter dated 13.10.2003.
2. The petitioner, a partnership firm, represented by its partner M/s.R.Samudrakani (Ammal) and R.Vasudevan were appointed as a dealer of the respondent Corporation in respect of the Retail Outlet at Royapettah High Road, Chennai-600 014 as per the terms and conditions contained in the Dispensing Pump Selling Licence Agreement dated 24.1.2001. On 27.9.2003 samples of MS, HSD & Lubricants were taken at the petitioner's Retail Outlet by the respondent officials and it was found that the samples failed to meet the specification as stipulated under the provisions of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Control (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998. A show cause notice was issued on 10.10.2003 to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his reply on 13.10.2003. The petitioner filed W.P.No.29388 of 2003 praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from passing any final order in pursuance of its letter/show cause notice dated 10.10.2003 till the respondent deputes some of the officials to test the samples that has been entrusted to the petitioner on 24.9.2003 when the product has been supplied to the petitioner and also on 27.9.2003 when the samples have been taken from the Outlet by the officials of the respondent corporation. This Court by order dated 9.2.2004 permitted the petitioner to file objections afresh to the respondent within one week from the date of that order and the respondent was directed to afford opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. Based on the objection/representation dated 12.2.2004, the respondent issued the impugned letter dated 22.05.2004 stating that the samples taken on 27.9.2003 failed to meet the specification as stipulated under the provisions of the Motor Sprit & High Speed Diesel Control (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998 and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation on or before 02.06.2004. The said communication is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 08.06.2004 and no interim order was granted. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and hence, the matter was taken up for disposal on merits.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is in the habit of rushing to Court on one pretext or the other to evade the action taken by the respondent consequent to breach of the licence condition, in accordance with law. In the instant case, the petitioner has been put on notice in respect of the various violations of the terms of the agreement and Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Control (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998. Since the preliminary explanation submitted was not satisfactory, the petitioner was called upon to give his explanation to the breach alleged in the detailed letter/notice dated 22.05.2004. It is stated in the end of the impugned letter/notice that the respondent corporation is reviewing the operation of the Retail Outlet in view of the breach of terms of licence agreement as set out in the letter dated 22.05.2004. The petitioner was informed that if has anything further to state, he can send his explanation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance when he has been given an opportunity to submit his explanation. Petitioner has rushed to the court in haste. The nature of relief sought for should not be entertained by this court as it deals with technical aspects and disputed facts.
5. The respondent has set out the breach that the petitioner committed in the impugned notice/letter. It also gives the details of the various violations committed by the petitioner in respect of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Control (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998. The petitioner is bound to give his explanation to the violations stated. On going through the grounds stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is seen that several factual disputes have been raised by the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to go into the factual disputes raised in the affidavit. As rightly pointed out by the respondent, matter of technical nature cannot be resolved by this court. It is for the petitioner to give his explanation to the impugned letter/notice dated 22.05.2004 and the Court will not interfere with such proceeding. The relief sought for in the writ petition is a premature. Further, the sample drawn are of the period September, 2003, and at this point of time the issue has become stale.
6. The respondent has given the petitioner an opportunity to submit his explanation keeping in line with the principles of natural justice and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in respect of the impugned letter. All the issues raised in this writ petition are disputed questions of fact and this court is not inclined to grant any relief in the writ petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is bound to give his explanation for the impugned letter, if he so desires.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
PAL/ts To The Territory Manager(Retail) M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 35, Vaidyanatha Mudali Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081 ========================================================= This matter is listed today under the caption "for being mentioned" at the request of Mr.M.Ganesan, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, who stated that he had given change of vakalat to the petitioner.
2. Now Mr.R.Parthiban Vignesh, learned counsel represented the court that he has filed vakalat on behalf of the petitioner today in SR No.106574 of 2009 and seeks for a fresh hearing.
3. When the matter was listed on 19.11.2009, Mr.M.Ganesan, learned counsel was on record and there was no memo withdrawing the vakalat. Hence, the case was taken up and disposed off on merits on 19.11.2009. The subsequent change of vakalat cannot be a ground for rehearing the writ petitioner as the same was disposed off on merits already. Hence no further hearing or order is required in this matter.
Date 25.11.2009 ts