DALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submit that objections already filed be treated as counter. On the consensus of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as dealer by respondent No. 2, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for running an outlet under the name and style of Bharat Motors and Cycle Company, Below Gumat, Jammu. It appears that the officers of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department visited the retail outlet of the petitioner on 20.2.2003 and lifted Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel samples. Respondent No. 1 got the samples tested on 19.4.2003 from Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu. Accordingly report No. 284/FSL dated 19.4.2003 was prepared which discovered that Exhibit No. K -112/2003 was identified as an admixture of Diesel and Kerosene oil. Based on this report, respondent No. 1 shot of an communication dated 1.5.2003 to respondent No. 2, thereby requesting him to take action against the petitioner. Further submission of the petitioner is that, since the report prepared by respondent No. 3 was on the face of it in contravention to the Marketing Discipline Guide Lines, 2001 and also not as per the testing norms, respondent No. 2 on receiving the aforesaid communication from respondent No. 1 addressed a communication dated 2.5.2003 to Deputy Director (Admn), Food and Supplies Department, exhibiting serious concern with regard to the test report of FSL being silent about the method of testing and on what parameter the sample has failed, and being not satisfied, made a request for providing complete test report. Respondent No. 3, however, till date has not furnished the detailed report of testing the sample as demanded by respondent No. 2, and instead, the petitioner has been asked to explain the reason for failure of sample of High Speed Diesel sample and also show cause as to why action be not taken against him. Aggrieved of the aforesaid communication, the petitioner has approached this court for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any action against the petitioner based on the incomplete and illegal report prepared by respondent No. 3 and further directing the respondent No. 2 to continue making regular supply of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel to the petitioner, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of J&K State.

(3.) IN their reply respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submitted that the Marketing Discipline Guide Lines, 2001, are meant only for Oil Marketing Companies and are not binding upon the respondents. The report received from respondent No. 3, with regard to analysis of sample of petrol and diesel, lifted from the retail out let of the petitioner, is self explanatory and clearly indicates that it was an admixture of diesel and kerosene oil. It is further contended that the officers of respondent No. 1, on a surprise visit to the retail out let of the petitioner, had taken samples of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel for laboratory testing and the petitioner having indulged in adulteration of petrol and diesel is unscrupulous dealer and deserves to be awarded exemplary punishment.