Karnataka High Court
M/S Shivaprakash Service Station vs Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 10 December, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.14412/2008 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. SHIVAPRAKASH SERVICE STATION
AUTHORIZED DEALER OF BHARATH
PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
HONNALLI ROAD, BASAVAPATNA
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DEVANGERE DISTRICT
BY ITS PROPERIETOR
SMT. B N GEETHA ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUBHASH S., ADV. FOR
M/S. KUMAR & KUMAR)
AND:
1. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
REP. BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL)
NEAR A.P.M.C. YARD
OFF.N.H.17, BAIKAMPADY
MANGALORE- 575 001
2. THE DEPUTY MANAGER SALES
BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
VISHWAS FUELS
OPP: FIRE STATION
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND
P.B. ROAD, DAVANGERE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. DIWAKAR, ADV. FOR
SRI K SUMAN FOR R1 & 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO; QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 18.11.2008, (ANN-M) PASSED BY THE R1, AS
2
THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE
PROVISION OF PETROLEUM ACT AND THE RULES MADE
THEREUNDER; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE
DEALERSHIP GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER & GRANT ALL THE
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING
THE ORDER AT ANN-M AND DIRECT THE CONTESTING
RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner having initially filed the petition has thereafter amended the same. The petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 08.11.2008 (Annexure-M) passed by the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has also sought for declaring that the alleged marker test on HSD carried out on 30.07.2008 at the petitioner's retail outlet by M/s SGS Agency on behalf of the first respondent is without any authority, unsustainable, illegal and void.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was running the retail outlet of the respondents at Honnalli Road, Basavapatna. The outlet was originally allotted to the proprietor's mother-in-law Smt. P.N. Sarvamangalamma on 26.07.2004 under the Freedom 3 Fighters Category reserved for Women. The letter of appointment was issued on 25.02.2005. She died on 28.11.2005 leaving behind the present proprietor of the petitioner, i.e., her daughter-in-law and son. On the request of the petitioner, the dealership was continued with effect from 17.02.2006. The petitioner claims to have run the retail outlet as per the conditions stipulated without any complaints from any one. On 30.07.2008 at 2.30 p.m., the employees belonging to M/s SGS India Private Limited ('SGS' for short) inspected the outlet and conducted test of the product. According to the petitioner, the test was conducted only on petrol, but the test on diesel was not conducted since the diesel pump was not functioning from 27.07.2008 and no sample could be drawn. The petitioner also states that during the month of July 2008, there was short supply of diesel and due to the agitation of the public, the outlet was also being closed at 7 p.m. The said SGS without considering the explanation has prepared a test report conducted on 30.07.2008. As per the report of SGS, the diesel turned pink, a show cause 4 notice was pasted on the petrol bunk. It is contended that if the inspection was made at 2.30 p.m. there was no need to paste the notice at 7.30 p.m. The allegations made therein are denied by the petitioner by replying to the show-cause notice through the reply dated 01.08.2008. The further correspondence in that regard are referred to in the petition. The petitioner further contends that one Sri B.R. Ravindranath, a dealer of M/s Indian Oil Corporation had filed W.P.No.4637/2007 seeking a declaration that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines-2005 ('MDG-2005' for short) introducing marker system as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void. The said writ petition was disposed of recording the submission of the learned counsel representing the Oil Company that the impugned notification is kept in abeyance until further orders. Hence, it is contended that the marker test alleged to have been carried out by SGS on the petitioner's retail outlet on 30.07.2008 is unauthorized and not sustainable.
5
3. Insofar as the proceedings held against the petitioner, the contents of the notice dated 27.08.2008 issued is disputed. The petitioner is also stated to have approached this Court in W.P.No.11813/2008 when suspension of supply was made. Despite the same, the termination letter dated 08.11.2008 is passed and therefore the unilateral decision taken by the respondents is assailed by the petitioner.
4. The respondents have filed their objection statement. They have at the outset contended that the appointment and termination is based on a private civil contract between the parties and such right cannot be enforced in a writ petition. Hence, the maintainability of the writ petition is questioned. Insofar as the facts involved, it is contended that the dealership was purely temporary which stood expired on 17.05.2006 and no permanent dealership was granted in favour of the petitioner. However, since the petroleum products are essential, the respondent-Corporation continued to supply the petroleum products without prejudice even 6 after 17.05.2006. With regard to the allegations against the petitioner, the test conducted by SGS is sought to be justified. It is contended that on 30.07.2008, two sets of samples both of petrol and diesel were drawn in the presence of the petitioner's representative. The sample tag was signed by the SGS representative and the representative of the petitioner. Since the petrol sample had passed and the diesel sample had failed, the inspection report was accordingly made. The representative of the petitioner refused to sign the report. The SGS informed the second respondent of this fact and handed over another set of sample for a confirmatory test that were to be carried out at the Installation Laboratory, Mangalore. The allegations made by the petitioner that no test had been carried out on diesel sample is denied and the document relied on to contend that no sales of diesel is made from 27.07.2008 is disputed. The petitioner had not complained that the diesel pump was not working and such claim being raised at this juncture cannot be accepted is the contention. The manner in which the 7 inspection was carried out between 2.05 p.m. to 5.10 p.m. is referred to and the non-production of the tank lorry retention sample which was required to be retained as per the MDG-2005 is averred. The correspondence intimating the petitioner about the further tests and the show cause notice issued is also referred to. The action of pasting the notice as the petitioner was not available is also referred to.
5. Insofar as the test that was conducted, it is pointed out that though letters were addressed, the petitioner put forth one or the other reason but did not turn up to witness the tests and a committee was constituted to witness the testing of sample. The test conducted on 04.09.2008 showed the diesel turning pink which proved that it was adulterated with kerosene. Suppressing all these aspects, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.11813/2008 and there being no restraint, the matter had been proceeded further. The said writ petition was however dismissed as infructuous. In that view, the respondents have sought 8 to sustain their action. The respondents also contend that the petitioner has received back the amount and the outlet has also been discontinued and as such, the question of restoring the same in any event would not arise. The respondents therefore seek dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The petitioner by filing the rejoinder has reiterated the contentions and has also contended that the validity of MDG-2005 had been considered by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.37175/1999 and connected petitions and has struck down MDG-2005 by the order dated 13.01.2010. The writ appeals filed against the same are pending consideration.
7. Heard Sri Subhash S. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Diwakar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the petition papers.
8. Firstly, with regard to the contention relating to the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned 9 counsel for the respondents has relied on the following decisions:
(i) Division Bench decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A.Nos.521-527/2000 and connected petitions dated 14.07.2000, wherein it is held that if a right is claimed in terms of the contract, the right cannot be enforced in a writ petition. In other words, the extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be used for the enforcement of contractual obligations.
(ii) The decision of this Court in the case of M/s Unity Service Station Indian Oil Dealers -vs-
Indian Oil Corporation limited (ILR 2007 KAR 3431) wherein a similar dealership contract was examined and it was held that the contract between the parties is in the realm of private law. Any dispute relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions cannot be agitated in a writ petition as factual adjudication is necessary.
(iii) The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Radhakrishna Agarwal and Others - 10 vs- State of Bihar and Others [(1977) 3 SCC 457] wherein it is held that if the facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence, the case cannot be conveniently or satisfactorily be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has referred to the following decisions on that point:
(i) The case of Mahabir Auto Stores and others -
vs- Indian Oil Corporation and Others [(1990) 1 SCR 818] wherein it is held that every action of the State or of an instrumentality of the State in exercise of its executive power must be informed by reason and where rule of law is applicable even though rights of citizens are in the nature of contractual rights, the manner, method and motive of entering or not entering into a contract are subject to judicial review on the touch stone of relevance and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non-discrimination. 11
(ii) The decision in the case of ABL International Limited and Another -vs- Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others [(2004) 3 SCC 553] wherein it is held that though a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of fact which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record will not normally be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact, the parties should be relegated to Civil Court.
(iii) The decision in the case of Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India -vs- Devi Ispat Limited and Others (2010 AIR SCW 5935) wherein it is held that in the contract, if there is a clause for arbitration, normally, writ Court should not invoke its jurisdiction and the existence of the effective alternative remedy provided in the contract itself is a good ground to decline to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, but if instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public good, public interest, unfairly, 12 unjustly, unreasonably, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in its contractual or statutory obligation, writ petition would be maintainable.
(iv) The decision in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and Another -vs- Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others (AIR 2003 SC 2120) wherein it is held that maintainability of writ petition in view of existence of arbitration clause and the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternate remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, inspite of availability of alternate remedy, the High Court may still exercise its jurisdiction in atleast three contingencies viz., for enforcement of fundamental rights; where there is failure of principles of natural justice and where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the Act is challenged.
10. The cumulative perusal of the decisions noticed above is the well settled position that normally 13 in contractual matters, where disputed questions of facts which require recording and assessment of evidence is necessary, the alternate remedy would have to be availed before an appropriate forum and a writ petition would not be maintainable. However, it is also held to be a rule of discretion and in appropriate cases, the merits of the matter could be considered on entertaining the petition. In that view, if the present dispute is taken note, there can be no doubt with regard to the termination of contract on there being allegation of misdemeanor of indulging in adulteration of the products and when such allegation is disputed, certainly, the evidence in that regard would have to be assessed and a conclusion would have to be reached only in an appropriate proceedings. But what is also to be noticed in the instant case is that the petitioner is also assailing the MDG-2005 and the authority of the inspecting agency and above all, what is to be kept in perspective in the instant case is that the writ petition is of the year 2008, it had been admitted and was pending for the last about five years. In such situation, keeping 14 in view the nature of contentions which have been put forth on merits relating to the controversy, at this juncture, I see no reason to reject the petition only on the question of maintainability or to relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy.
11. Secondly, the contention of the respondents that the instant petition is not liable to be examined at the instance of the petitioner since no allotment of dealership was made to the petitioner, but it was only temporary arrangement which stood expired on 17.05.2006 also would not be of consequence since the discontinuance of the dealership or the outlet is not on the said basis, but having continued the same, the termination has ultimately been made by the order dated 08.11.2008 on the allegation of misdemeanor. Hence, the validity of the action taken would still be open for consideration.
12. In that view, before adverting to the consideration based on the factual matrix where the termination has been made, it would be appropriate to 15 consider as to whether SGS which conducted the inspection had the authority to do so and whether the striking down of MDG-2005 as contended by the petitioner would have any bearing to the instant facts?
13. On the above aspect, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on The Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 (for short 'MS and HSD, Order 2005) to contend that an Authorised Officer has been defined therein and Clause VII thereon provides that any Gazetted Officer of the Central Government or State Government or Any Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police duly authorised by General or Special Order of the Central Government or a State Government as the case may be or any Officer of the Oil Company not below the rank of the Sales Officer with a view of securing compliance of the provisions of the order, for satisfying himself of the compliance may make search and 16 seizure. The method of taking samples on such inspection is also contained in Clause VIII therein.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard has referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.37175/1999 and connected petitions dated 13.01.2010 wherein the MDG-2005 is struck down. On that aspect, the very decision therein would indicate that the learned Judge has clarified in the order that the striking down would not effect the action which has played itself out, which means it is prospective. In the instant case, since termination was already made, it cannot be set aside only on that ground. Further, it is also not in dispute that the said order has been carried in appeal and the same is pending consideration.
15. On the contention that SGS which conducted the inspection had no authority to do so, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of D. Nagarajan and Company - vs- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 17 Chennai [AIR 2008 (NOC) 1801 (Madras)] wherein it is held that Clause 2(b) of MS and HSD, Order 2005, wherein "authorised officer" is provided does not include SGS and the delegation is not permissible. The decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Singhara Singh and Others (AIR 1964 SC 358) and in the case of Sri Mandir Sita Ramji -vs- Governor of Delhi and Others (AIR 1974 SC 1868) wherein it is held that if a statute confers a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which the power is to be exercised, it should be done in that manner only and a different procedure cannot be substituted.
16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Shyam Diesel -vs- Bharat Petroleum Corporation India Limited and Another (SB Civil W.P.No.4591/2007 dated 03.10.2007) wherein it is held that though SGS is not an authorised officer under MS and HSD, Order 2005, however under the 18 agreement between the parties, an agent of Corporation is having power to make necessary inspection. Therefore, it is in addition to the power given to the authorised officers under the MS and HSD, Order 2005 and such additional power is not in contravention of the MS and HSD, Order 2005. Hence, it is held that SGS is having competence to make inspection. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Halder & Anr -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors (AIR 2009 (NOC) 1567 (Cal.)) is also relied on, wherein it is held that Essential Commodities Act and MS and HSD, Order 2005 relate to proceedings to punish the offender for committing statutory violation whereas the proceedings in terms of the agreement is to deal with the misconduct. The two proceedings are independent of one another and do not come in conflict.
17. Having considered the two sets of decisions relied on the aspect relating to the validity or otherwise of the inspection conducted by SGS, I am persuaded to accept the opinion expressed by the Rajastan High 19 Court and Calcutta High Court since even in my considered view, the provisions of MS and HSD, Order 2005, which provides for statutory actions which is punitive does not prevent the additional procedure being adopted by the Oil companies to keep a tab on its retail outlet and to ensure the quality of products being supplied by them and in the event of detecting misdemeanors which constitutes misconduct in the affairs of managing the retail outlet, it would be open to act in terms of the contractual obligations and termination can be made. The reputation of the oil company is also required to be safeguarded by adopting such procedure. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an act should be done only in the manner it is required to be done would only mean that in the instant facts, if action was initiated by the authorised officer under MS and HSD, Order 2005, for imposing the punishment, the entire procedure as provided therein should be followed scrupulously by the prescribed Competent Authority.
20
18. On the other hand, when action is initiated in terms of the agreement and the MDG-2005, the procedure contemplated therein has to be followed. Even the action being initiated based on the inspection of SGS also cannot be said as being fanciful or arbitrary since the MDG-2005 has provided for a detailed procedure for testing the samples drawn in comparison with the lorry retention sample and supply location sample, all of which ensure sufficient safeguard to the dealers to establish their bona fide. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on the MDG-2005 to contend that the procedure contemplated therein has not been followed. Be that as it may, since I have concluded that the striking down of MDG-2005 being subsequent to the action against the petitioner and SGS inspection is also justified, the factual matrix with regard to the allegation against the petitioner and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the diesel in the petitioner's outlet was not adulterated requires consideration.
21
19. In the above backdrop, the facts in the instant case would disclose that an inspection was held on 30.07.2008 cannot be in dispute. Regarding the sample of petrol being drawn and the quality being good, there is no dispute. With regard to the sample of diesel that was drawn and tested, though the report submitted by SGS would indicate that the diesel turned pink and was therefore adulterated, which was also confirmed in the subsequent confirmatory test carried out at Territory Office, Bangalore, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the diesel sample had not been drawn at all from the tank since the diesel pump was not functioning. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has relied on the Sale Register Extract (Annexure-E) said to have been maintained by the petitioner to contend that the reading of the opening stock and the receipts put together would indicate the same reading from 27.07.2008 onwards till 30.07.2008 and therefore, no sale had taken place due to the faulty pump which would fortify the contention that the diesel had not been drawn from the tank on 30.07.2008. The 22 said document is disputed by the respondents. The relevance of the document is to be considered based on the nature of the other proceedings that has taken place.
20. The test report was thereafter prepared and the respondents contend that the representative of the petitioner refused to sign the same. Subsequent thereto, notice was pasted on the outlet. The said notice refers to the fact that the petitioner's representative failed to acknowledge the report and to provide tank lorry retention samples. The petitioner by their reply dated 01.08.2008 have admitted the inspection that was carried out on 30.07.2008. The Proprietor also indicates that she was not personally present at that time and was being managed by her workers. Despite admittedly being absent at that time, she attempts to dispute that her staff refused to acknowledge the report though she could not have had personal knowledge. She however contends that the diesel section was running with certain problems as the 23 dispensing pump was kept unused. The non-providing of the TT sample is also sought to be explained. In addition, the fact that the outlet had been closed before 7.30 p.m. is also sought to be explained. The respondents by their communication dated 02.08.2008 have once again reiterated the allegations made against the petitioner and had sought for explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner by the letter dated 11.08.2008 had sought for further time to put forth the explanation and by the communication dated 25.08.2008, a reply was issued and the earlier stand taken in the communication was reiterated. With regard to the confirmatory test which was proposed to be held on 27.08.2008, the reasons were stated for not being present. The petitioner however did not choose to participate in the process of confirmatory test even on the postponed day. In the test conducted, it was confirmed that the diesel had been adulterated. The termination order dated 08.11.2008 was issued and subsequently, the deposit had been repaid and the retail outlet is also dismantled.
24
21. Since the action was initiated based on the adulterated sample that had been collected from the tank at the retail outlet and the petitioner disputes the same, both the learned counsel have referred to Chapter-2 of MDG-2005 which enumerates the guideline for Sample Collection and Testing (3 tier sampling). Apart from the manner in which the samples would be retained at the time of supply to the retail outlet i.e., the location sample and also lorry retention sample that would be available at the outlet, Clause 2.4.2 is referred to contend that it provides for collection of three samples of one litre each from the tank of the retail outlet, one each for the Dealer, Division office and one to the Oil Industry Marketing Laboratory for testing. The procedure to be followed in that regard is referred and that it should reach the laboratory for testing within ten days for testing is also referred and contended that the said procedures contemplated has not been followed.
25
22. In the above backdrop, what is to be noticed at the outset is that the learned counsel for the petitioner is relying on the said procedural aspect of collecting the samples as provided therein to contend that the pump was not working and no samples were collected at all and if it was so, the respondents should have followed that procedure. Except for stating so in the reply to the notice issued to the petitioner, apart from there being no material to indicate that the pump was in fact non-functional prior to the date of inspection and had been intimated to the respondents, even after the inspection or during the process of issue of show cause notice or holding the confirmatory test, the petitioner does not choose to appear before the respondents and put forth their materials including Annexure-E relied upon herein even if they had a grievance that SGS had in fact not collected the sample to enable a factual assessment to be made by the respondents. The petitioner has contended that at the time of inspection, the Proprietor had gone for lunch and employees were there. When such inspection had 26 taken place, even assuming that the pump was not working, the normal conduct should have been for the employees to inform the proprietor so as to return to the outlet or atleast to contact the Area Sales Office which is situate in Davanagere as per the address indicated in the inspection report.
23. To accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-functioning of the pump though had not been intimated in writing had been brought to the notice of the respondents keeping in view that such routine matters are not put in writing, the subsequent conduct of the petitioner does not persuade this Court. When the inspection took place on 30.07.2008 and the show cause notice was pasted on the retail outlet, the petitioner has immediately taken steps of replying in writing on 01.08.2008 wherein it is stated about the non-functioning of the pump but nothing is available in writing about faulty pump earlier or on the same day by way of protest. As noticed above, though inspection was conducted on 27 30.07.2008 at about 2.05 p.m. and the Proprietor contended that she had gone for lunch, no efforts were made to come back and lodge protest with regard to the pump being in disorder. If in this background, the contention of the respondents that the representatives of the petitioner had failed to sign the mahazar is also kept in view, the petitioner at this stage raising technical plea claiming to be aggrieved by three sets of samples not being taken as per procedure cannot be accepted since when the mahazar itself is not acknowledged, even if the sample was given to the retail outlet it would not be acknowledged. The other two samples, one drawn by the agency for testing and the other sent to the Territory Office for confirmatory test were available would have to be accepted, when the respondents have contended that the sample tag was signed by the petitioner's representative. Further, the requirement of the Rule is that it should reach the Territory Office within 10 days and not that the testing also should be completed within the said time frame. The petitioner cannot complain in that regard when 28 they have not co-operated for the test and delayed the process.
24. With regard to the confirmatory test, when it was fixed on 27.08.2008 and was intimated to the petitioner by the letter dated 20.8.2008, the petitioner instead of taking part in the same had made excuses to avoid the same. It is no doubt true that the respondents, in view of the observation in the inspection report that the lorry retention sample was not available in the retail outlet had indicated that it would not be permitted to be produced. If in fact the same was available with the petitioner there was no reason as to why they could not have still taken the same on that day and registered their protest or taken steps to complain to the higher authorities. That apart, it could have been verified whether the signature of the representative on the sample tag was actually his or not. Further, though the confirmatory test scheduled on 27.08.2008 was postponed to 04.09.2008 to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, they had failed 29 to participate. However, by the letter dated 15.09.2008, it was subsequently stated that she was unwell and a medical certificate was enclosed. The certificate indicates that the doctor has stated that she was suffering from viral fever and was treated between 02.09.2008 to 10.09.2008. Even if that be so, nothing had prevented the Proprietor of the petitioner to either inform earlier or send a representative on the said date to inform this fact or to witness the confirmatory test.
25. Therefore, when the case of the parties is being examined in a writ proceedings and that too on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the conduct of the petitioner from the very beginning appears to be in the direction of evading the ultimate action by not cooperating either in the inspection or the subsequent process of confirmatory tests. The manner in which the petitioner has conducted themselves does not inspire confidence of this Court to hold that they have not committed any misdemeanor. There was no reason for the respondents to have unnecessarily 30 resorted to this action, if there was no truth, as there is no need for them to close down their business. In any case, it was not done to favour any other person to run the outlet so as to assume malafide action. If this is kept in perspective, the present contentions being raised on the technicality of the nature of deriving samples and the testing to be done cannot come to the aid of the petitioner as the same would have been available if the entire process was gone through by the petitioner and if the appropriate samples had not been tested as per procedure.
26. For all the aforestated reasons, I see no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner so as to call for interference.
The petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms