SANJEEV DEEWAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the propriety and correctness of the order dated 12-10-1998, Annexure 21 to the writ petition whereby wholesale licence of the petitioners to distribute the Kerosene Oil was cancelled by the licensing authority-respondent No. 3 and the order dated 24-2-1999, Annexure 26 passed by the respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners under paragraph 12 of the U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "Control Order, 1962").

(2.) The petitioner No. 2 M/s. Deewan Oil Company is a registered firm having its office at Chhatta Bazar, Agra. The petitioner No. 1 Sanjeev Deewan is one of its partners. The firm carries on the business as a whole seller in Kerosene Oil having licence No. 35 issued under the Control Order, 1962. The supplies of Kerosene oil are received by the petitioners from the Indian Oil Corporation. Under the orders of the State Government every wholesale licensee is required to distribute his quota of Kerosene oil to the retaildealers under the directions of the District Supply Officer at the distributive points. The District Supply Officer fixes quota for retail dealer and distributes monthwise quota for them. On 21-8-1998, the petitioners had taken the delivery of 34 Kilo litres (34000 litres) Kerosene oil in three tankers from local I.O.C. depot Idgah Agra. One of the tankers containing 12000 litres of Kerosene oil was meant for distribution to 10 retail dealers who were running the fair price shops in Tahsil Bah in district Agra. On getting a tip from a reliable informer that 12000 litre of Kerosene oil supplied to the petitioners and meant for distribution to 10 retail dealers in Tahsil Bah has been black marketed in Mohalla Rambagh Agra, the licensing authority respondent No. 3 deputed a team of officers to make an on the spot surprise check. The team visited different places in Tahsil Bah on 22nd and 23/08/1998 and interrogated Uma Charan Singh, one of the retail dealers in village Rampur Chandra Saini. On account of absence of the other retail dealers in the concerned villages, the statements of their near relatives such as brothers and nephews were recorded. The team could not visit village Simrai, which had two retail dealers, namely, Jeewa Ram and Ho Ram Singh on account of inaccessibility due to water logging in the rainy season. The statements of the concerned persons recorded by the team have been filed as Annexures 3 to 9 by the petitioners. It was reported that on 21-8-1998 no supplies were made to any one of the retail dealers. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 31-8-1998 was issued by the licensing authority to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their reply/explanation on 24-9-1998. The licensing authority cancelled the licence of the petitioners to deal in the Kerosene oil as a whole seller by order dated 12-10-1998, a copy of which is Annexure 21 to the writ petition. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred Appeal No. 32 of 1998 before the Commissioner of the division. The appellate authority refused to stay the order of cancellation of licence of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners preferred Civil Misc. Writ No. 39259 of 1998 before this Court. The operation of the order of cancellation dated 12-10-1998 was stayed. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 24-2-1999, a copy of which is Annexure 26 to the writ petition.

(3.) Besides the cancellation of the licence of the petitioners a First Information Report has also been lodged against them for having allegedly resorted to malpractice of black marketing the kerosene oil which was meant for the distribution to the retail fair price shop dealers.