RAMANANDA GAS AGENCY, GAURIBIDANUR TOWN, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, BY ITS PROPRIETOR DR. G.N. ANANDA BABU Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR, THE TAHSILDAR, GAULIBIDANUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT AND M/S. HINDUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur, which is produced at Annexure -J, whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 & 5 (b) of Essential Commodities Act. 1955 and also under the provisions of Clause 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the Petroleum Products (Maintenance of Production, Storage and Supply) Order, 1999, the entire 'unit run by the petitioner along with cylinders, vehicles, godown and the infrastructure in possession of the petitioner has been taken over to the Government and ordered to be handed over to another Gas Agency by name S.L.V. Gas Agency, Bagepaili, by way of temporary arrangement to enable distribution of petroleum gas to the consumers.

(2.) PETITIONER entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for the purpose of supplying/distribution of petroleum gas for domestic and commercial consumption. According to the petitioner, for the last 26 years, it has been carrying on the business as a distributor without any allegation whatsoever. However, on 03.10.2011, the concerned Food Inspector conducted inspection, examined the stock register and ascertained the opening balance of filled up and empty domestic and commercial cylinder and seized 92 consumer pass books belonging to different customers. This was followed by communication dated 05.10.2011 addressed by the Tahsildar to the Executive Sales Officer of the 3rd respondent informing the seizure of the petitioner - agency.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire action culminating in the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is totally illegal, arbitrary and therefore unsustainable. He draws the attention of the Court to the provisions contained under Clause 7 of the Petroleum Products (Maintenance of Production, Storage and Supply) Order, 1999, and submits that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to the dealer in case the Competent Authority were to come to the conclusion that taking over the unit was necessary in public interest. Referring to the proviso to Clause 7, learned counsel further submits that an exception is provided to dispense with notice and opportunity of being heard in cases of urgency where the circumstances do not permit serving of notice for want of sufficient time upon the dealer against whom the order is directed.