SANJAY AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners stating that the petitioner is engaged in the transportation of Diesel (Petroleum Class B) up to 2000 litres on hire from duly installed Petrol Pumps to the different mines which are being run under lease or permit having certificate of approval for Petroleum. It is stated that the rivals of the petitioner made a false complaint to the authorities stating that the petitioner's Tanker are violating the Rules 75, 76 & 77 of the Petroleum Rules. It is stated that the District Magistrate, based upon the said complaint, made certain enquiry behind the back of the petitioners and based upon such ex-parte enquiry proceeded to pass the order dated 8.1.2019 whereby it was held that all the Tankers which are being run in violation of Rules 75, 76 & 77 of the Petroleum Rules, 2018 are wholly illegal. it was also recorded that a report was called from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive, Allahabad and based upon the said report, it is held that all the Tankers without any permission under Rules 76, 76 & 77 of the Petroleum Rules, 2018 are illegal and necessary action may be taken against the said person. It is this order dated 8.1.2019 which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners Sri Rahul Sripat has specifically argued that the transportation of petroleum products are governed by the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(3.) Section 7 of the Petroleum Act specifically provides that no license is needed for transport or storage of limited quantity of Petroleum Class B and Petroleum Class C and further Section 7 (i) of the Petroleum Act provides that for possession or transport of Petroleum Class B not exceeding 2500 litres, no permission is required. It is also specifically argued that the reference to the Petroleum Rule 2018 in the impugned order is wholly erroneous inasmuch as the said Petroleum Rules, 2018 have not been notified. It is further argued that even under the draft Rules of 2018, there is no change with regards to the works carried out by the petitioners and are not applicable in view of Section 7 of the Petroleum Act, 1934. The last submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the order has been passed without providing the ex-parte report and without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, thus, the impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness.