Gujarat High Court
Rajkumar Petroleum Services Partner ... vs State Of Gujarat on 8 September, 2021
Author: J. B. Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/LPA/815/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 815 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5393 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR SUBSTITUTE SERVICE) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 815 of 2021
==========================================================
RAJKUMAR PETROLEUM SERVICES PARTNER TILAKRAJ C SAHANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAt & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
S M KIKANI(7596) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR KM ANTANI, AGP (99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 08/09/2021
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL:-
1. This appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ-applicant of a writ-application and is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 01.05.2018 in the Special Civil Application No.5393 of 2006, by which, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ-
application.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under:-
2.1 The writ-applicant preferred the Special Civil Application Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 12:32:07 IST 2021 C/LPA/815/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2021 No.5393 of 2006 with the following prayers:-
7(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.1 in revision application no.61 of 2002 confirming the order passed by the respondent no.2 - Collector and the order passed by the respondent no.3 DSO thereby cancelling the licence no.4/81 of Petrol/ Diesel as being illegal, arbitrary, also violative of Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) & 21 of the Constitution of India.
(B) Be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the order passed by the respondent no.1 in revision application no.61 of 2002 confirming the order passed by the respondent no.2 -
Collector and the order passed by the respondent no.3 District Supply Officer pending the admission, hearing and final hearing of the petition;
(C) Be pleased to issue direction to Police Inspector of the concerned police station to recheck the reading of the meter and submit the report to the Hon'ble Court, pending the admission, hearing and final hearing of the petition;
(D) Be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, as are deemed fit in the interest of justice;
2.2 It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein was granted licence No.4/81 for distribution of petrol and diesel. Such licence was issued on 18.09.1999. One fine day, inspection was undertaken by the respondent no.3 of the petrol- pump owned by the appellant. Initially the licence was ordered to be suspended for a period of 60 days, thereafter, a show-cause notice came to be issued calling upon the appellant to show-cause as to why the licence should not be cancelled on the ground that the sample drawn from the petrol-pump of the appellant of petrol was found to be adulterated and of low density. At the end of the inquiry, an order came to be passed cancelling the licence.
2.3 An appeal was preferred before the District Supply Officer. The appeal also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, a Revision Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 12:32:07 IST 2021 C/LPA/815/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2021 Application was filed before the State Government. The State Government also declined to entertain such revision application and thereby affirmed the two orders passed by the authorities concerned.
2.4 Against concurrent findings of three authorities, the appellant came before this High Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.5393 of 2006.
2.5 The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the three authorities and rejected the writ-application accordingly. While rejecting the writ- application, the learned Single Judge observed the following in Paragraph-14 of the impugned order.
"14. The affidavit-in-reply as well as the impugned order at Annexure-I passed by the Secretary Civil Supplies Department in Revision Application No. 61/2002, confirming the order passed by the collector and the District Supply Officer has discussed at length about the irregularity under the provisions of Gujarat Essential Commodities (licensing and control and stock declaration) read with petrol and diesel order). It has been specifically reflected in the order that the sample contained and examined was not conforming the required standards. The density was not conforming with the required standards. This was again confirmed on physical verification of the stock as reflected from the stock register and other record. The petitioner was given an opportunity for the necessary testing by other laboratory. It is required to be stated that IOC has not joined as a party and in such cases normally the sample is tested with the laboratory of oil company which could give indication and therefore, the submissions about denial of opportunity has no legs to stand. Further the contention about the provisions of motor spirit and high speed diesel (Regulations Supply and Distribution and provisions of malpractice) order 1998, has to be read with essential commodities (licensing and Control and stock declaration order 1981) cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or authority. This aspect has also been dealt with the affidavit- in-reply, filed by the State and the finding of fact based on Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 12:32:07 IST 2021 C/LPA/815/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2021 relevant material by the authorities below would not justify the exercise of any discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well accepted that normally High Court would decline to exercise such jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless it can be said that the order passed is perverse without jurisdiction and or totally misdirected. In the facts of the case and as discussed herein- above the concurrent findings with details discussed on various issues and contentions raised cannot be said to be erroneous which would call for exercise of such discretionary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A useful reference can be made to the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in the broad guidelines with regard to the scope of exercise of discretionary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
3. We have heard Mr. Kikani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Antani, the learned AGP appearing for the State respondents.
4. We are of the view that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order. No case for interference has been made out.
5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION:-
The connected Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 12:32:07 IST 2021