PREMODAYA Vs. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a firm having Dealership Agreement-cum-Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence (DPSL), dated 8. 8. 1998, with the respondent, namely, Bharat Petroleum Corporation limited (BPCL ). The firm filed the writ petition assailing the order of the Territory manager (Retail), BPCL, suspending the sales and supplies of all petroleum products at petitioner's retail outlet for a period of 30 days and imposing a fine of Rs. 20,000/ -. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order as illegal and void.

(2.) THE firm is running a retail outlet in the name and style of M/s. Premodaya at Buchireddypalem, Nellore District. It obtained Form-B licence from the Joint collector, Nellore, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (State Control Order, for brevity ). On 19. 1. 2000 the Senior Sales Officer (Retail), nellore, of the respondent company visited the petitioner's outlet. He took samples of motor Spirit (MS) (Petrol) from the dispensing unit and handed over a copy of the Inspection Report to an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that no contravention of the State Control Order was noticed. It also contends that it did not contravene any other provisions of the Motor spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of supply and Distribution and Prevention of mal practices) Order, 1990 (Control Order, for brevity), which deals with specifications of MS and procedure for such seizure and sampling of products for testing. On 21. 3. 2001 the Territory Manager addressed a letter to the petitioner informing that as per the Test Report after clinical analysis of the sample the same does not meet the specifications of Research Octane Number (RON ). There was no notice, however, proposing any action in terms of clauses 13 (a) (vii) (viii) of DPSL. But, on 3. 5. 2001 the impugned order was passed imposing penalty.

(3.) THE Territory Manager (Retail), cherlapalli, BPCL, has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent opposing the writ petition. It is alleged that sampling and clinical analysis for testing was done in accordance with the Control order and that the action taken is not arbitrary.