IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.14922 of 2014 Between:
M/s. Vijaya Durga Oil Filling Station, Rep. by its Partner – Sri K. Ramgopal Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged 50 years, Sy.No.897/16, Guntur Road, Piduguralla - 522 413, Guntur District.
.. Petitioner AND The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Divisional Office: GVR Towers, 3rd Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Ring Road, Vijayawada – 520 008 & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.14922 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner is a retail dealer with Indian Oil Corporation Limited since year 2002. This writ petition is instituted challenging the show cause notice, dated 23.04.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even before the show cause notice was issued, a notice was served on the petitioner that is dated 10.03.2014, on which a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner on 22.03.2014. Without taking note of the reply already filed by the petitioner, this show cause notice was issued. Even though the petitioner filed further explanation, the petitioner apprehends that the orders are going to be passed by the authority without considering the earlier explanation submitted by the petitioner on 22.03.2014 and that the respondents are contemplating to stop supplies even before the order is passed. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Admittedly, action was initiated based on the inspection conducted by the inspection unit of the respondent Corporation and the inspection unit found prima facie irregularities in operation of the retail outlet. Based on the inspection unit, a notice was issued and after submission of the explanation, the present show cause notice is issued. The present show cause notice refers to the irregularities pointed out by the inspection unit and the provisions of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines which attract taking action against the dealer in case of proved violation of the said provisions. The show cause notice is issued by a competent authority.
3. I, therefore, see no error in the initiation of the action against the petitioner. It is well within the competency of the respondent Corporation to initiate disciplinary action against erring retail outlet, if it is noticed that retail outlet was committing irregularities in operation of the outlet contrary to the agreement clauses and the Marketing Discipline Guidelines.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes submissions on merits and invited attention to various documents filed as material papers to show that what is alleged against him is not correct. This Court cannot go into the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner even before the competent authority has taken a decision. The show cause notice was issued in valid exercise of power. There are no allegations of mala fides against the officer, who issued show cause notice. Writ petition against show cause notice is not maintainable.
5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that the earlier reply furnished by the petitioner to the show cause notice, dated 10.03.2014, is not being considered and unless the earlier explanation is also considered, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also apprehends that in the impugned show cause notice, dated 10.03.2014, there is an extract which reads “Seals of the metering unit found tampered in the dispensing pumps.”, as if the same is reported by the investigation team, whereas the report of the investigation team does not use the same terminology and it, thus, amounts to pre-judging the issue.
7. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not the opinion of the competent authority. He only refers to an extract of what is observed by the inspecting unit. If the observation as extracted in the show cause notice is not correct, it is open to the petitioner to point out to the competent authority and it is needless to observe that the competent authority shall also consider the said objection.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner’s further apprehension is that even before the orders are passed, the competent authority is going to stop the supplies. This apprehension is not valid and the interests of the petitioner are sufficiently protected by Clause 8.9.1 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines. The said guideline reads as under:
“In case of orders in critical irregularities, the dealer will have the right to appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order, before the appropriate authority who will be empowered to decide the matter and the appeal shall be disposed off preferably within 90 days from the date of filing the appeal in the office of the appellate authority. During this period also, the RO will be kept open if the sales and supplies were not suspended earlier.”
9. Thus, according to the above provision, even after the order is passed by the competent authority, for a period of 30 days, and if appeal is field, till the disposal of appeal the supplies to the dispensing unit are not to be disturbed. Therefore, the interests of the petitioners are sufficiently protected.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The competent authority of the respondent Corporation shall duly consider all the objections filed by the petitioner after the show cause notice is issued and earlier to the show cause notice issued. The petitioner is also permitted to file additional objection on the observation of the inspection unit and the same shall also be considered. After considering all the objections, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 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: 3rd June, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.14922 of 2014 Date: 3rd June, 2014 KL