Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bearing in mind the aforesaid observation since the first order for imposition of penalty passed by respondent no. 2 is a substantial cause of action and its office falls within the Original Side Jurisdiction of this Court, hence the present writ petition is entertainable in the Original Side.

With regard to the merit of the writ petition, Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the penalty has been imposed upon the petitioners on the score that at the time of inspection when the delivery man was to leave the godown for delivery about the six numbers of cylinders which were weighed was found underweight and mismatch of stocks. He indicated that at the time of inspection platform type digital weighing scale of least count +/- 10 gms prescribed in the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2011') was not used though the same was available in the godown rather hand check electronic device was used by the inspecting team for weighing the cylinders. Further the weight of the cylinders were weighed one digit after the decimal and not weighing it till two digit after decimal which could have shown that the cylinders were not beyond the permissible limit. The Rules, 2011 provides that the maximum permissible errors on net quantity declared by weight or volumn is 150 g or ml and +/- 10 g which would permit for error upto 140 to 160 g or ml. Since the weight was not taken at a platform type digital electronics device, the same has resulted in a faulty calculation. There is no case of the respondent-Oil Corporation that the cylinders were tampered by the petitioners. Therefore, without any fault on the part of the petitioners they have been penalized which is an arbitrary action on the part of the Oil Company. Where the process of decision- making is faulty and proper reasoning is not recorded for arrival at a conclusion, the action of the Oil Corporation falls under the category of arbitrariness which has precisely happened in the case at hand. To buttress his contention he relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Sharma versus Chandigarh Administration and Ors. reported in (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 86. Furthermore he submits that the allegation of mismatch of stocks is due to the reason that previous to the date of inspection SDMS was not working, for which reason the stocks posting could not be done properly. Therefore, both the aforesaid allegations against the petitioners/distributors are not tenable. In light of his aforesaid submission he prays for an interim order of stay restraining respondent nos. 1 to 4 from realising or taking coercive action in the matter of realising the penalty from the writ petitioners.