Karnataka High Court
M/S Shaan Petroleum vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 1 February, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.53757/2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. SHAAN PETROLEUM
HPCL PETORL/DIESEL RETAIL OUTLET,
REP. BY IS SOLE PROPRIETOR,
SRI. MOHAMMED SHOWKATH ULLA,
S/O ABDUL SHOOKUR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.180/2, LEFT HAND SIDE FROM
TUMAKURU-SIRA,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY-4, OORUKERE (P)
TUMAKURU 572106.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI FAYAZ SAB B G, ADV.)
AND:
1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
REGISTERED OFFICE A T NO.L.17,
JAMSHEDJI T ATA ROAD,
MUMBAI 400 020.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE RETAIL
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORAION LTD,
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE)
NO.77, P.B. NO.1610, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
DOORVANI NAGAR, DOORVANI POST
KRISHNARAJA PURAM
BENGALURU -560 010.
2
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MNAGER
BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE RETAIL
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES)
NO.77, P.B. NO.1610, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
DOORVANI NAGAR, DOORVANI POST
KRISHNARAJA PURAM,
BENGALURU 560 010.
4. SRI R JAGADISHWAR
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES)
PARISARAM BHAVANA, 7TH FLOOR
OPP. BABUKLON ESTATE BUILDING
HYDERABAD-560 004
5. SRI. B.RAMAKRISHNA RAO
SENIOR MANAGER (VIGILANCE)
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
NO.77, P.B. NO.1610, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
DOORVANI NAGAR, DOORVANI POST,
KRISHNARAJA PUAM,
BENGALURU 560 016.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B PRAMOD, ADV. FOR R2 & R3
R1, 4 & 5 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE; QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 WHEREIN 3 TIER MDG
SAMPLES OF ALL PRODUCTS DRAWN AND SALES AND
SUPPLIES OF ALL PRODUCTS SUSPENDED FROM THE
PETITIONERS OUTLET NAMELY M/S.SHAAN PETROLEUM
PASSED BY THE R-5, WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-E AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND
PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.11.2017 wherein on drawing the 3 tier MDG samples, action has been initiated against the petitioner and the sales and supplies of all products has been suspended. In that view, the petitioner is seeking to direct the respondents to continue with the sale and supply of products at the petitioner's outlet.
2. The facts relating to the petitioner being a retail outlet under the respondents is the accepted position. The issue for consideration herein is with regard to the action that had been initiated by the respondents against the petitioner and as to whether in that circumstance before conclusion of the proceedings by the respondents, whether any interference is called for from this Court. 4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner to support the contention to urge that the respondents be directed to provide the supplies to the retail outlet and permit the petitioner to carry on with the business would seek to rely on the document at Annexure-E to contend that the inspection was conducted on 23.11.2017 and as per the said report, there is no marked variation with regard to the adulteration as contended presently and therefore the respondents pending consideration of all other aspects are required to permit the petitioner to continue with the sale. In that regard, the petitioner also seeks to rely on the earlier order dated 26.06.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22812/2015 where this Court had directed the respondents therein to permit the sales pending completion of the enquiry.
5
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would however refer to the objection statement and point out that in the show cause notice issued by the respondents, it has been pointed out that there was major density variation and the details pertaining to the same has been submitted. It is also pointed out that the action initiated against the petitioner is both with regard to violation of the terms in the retail outlet and also with regard to transportation of the petroleum products. In that light, it is contended that to the show cause notice issued by the respondents, the petitioner has issued the reply and therefore a consideration is required. It is contended that when the allegation of adulteration is made against the petitioner, any leave to carry on with the business at this point would be detrimental not only to the reputation of the respondent-company, but also would 6 create hardship to the customers who draw petroleum products from the petitioner's outlet. In that view, it is contended that until a detailed consideration is made by the respondents, no other indulgence is to be shown to the petitioner.
5. In that regard, having taken note of the document at Annexure-E, though in the tabular column relating to the Report On Density at Item No.5, the indication as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is shown. The observation of the inspection as contained therein would refer to the major variation in HSD densities and the details relating to the variation has also been referred to therein. The very same reading which has been indicated therein is also contained in the show cause notice dated 15.12.2017 and the petitioner has been sought to reply to such show cause notice. The 7 petitioner no doubt has issued his reply and in that light when the factual aspects relating to the allegation as made against the petitioner and the justification sought to be put forth by the petitioner is to be taken note by the respondents and the allegation is also with regard to the adulteration, I do not see reason to rely on the order dated 26.06.2015 passed in W.P.No.22812/2015 since leave as granted therein is only on the factual aspects that had arisen therein and this Court had taken into consideration the Lab Analysis report which was available on the facts of that case.
6. Hence, in the instant case, I do not see reason to pass any direction pending consideration of the proceedings by the respondents, but to protect the interest of all concerned, it is appropriate to direct the 8 respondents to complete the process of enquiry in an expeditious manner, but not later than three weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms