IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22367 of 2008 Between: M/s. Uma Maheswara Agencies Rep. by its Mngng. Partner,D.V.Nageswara Rao Main Road, Sattenapalli, Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sr. Manager, QCC (S) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 1, Ranganathan Gardens, Off. 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040. 2 The Territory Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Kattubadipalem (PO), Pinapaka Village, Kondapally, Vijayawada - 521 228. 3 The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Rep. by its Area Mktng. Manager S.D. Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of the 1st Respondent dated 11-09-2008 regarding suspension of sales and supplies of petroleum products to the Petitioner's ﬁrm by name M/s. Uma Maheswara Agencies, Sattenapalli, and the consequential show Cause Notice of the 2nd Respondent dated 10-10-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22367 of 2008 O R D E R : The petitioner herein is the dealer for sale of petroleum products of the 3rd respondent-Corporation and has been running a dispensing pump at Sathenapally, Guntur District. On 11-09-2008, the Oﬃcers of the 3rd respondent- Corporation inspected the petitioner’s outlet and carried out the stock check. Having found that there was stock variation, by order dated 11-09-2008, the sales in the petitioner retail outlet were suspended. Thereafter, the samples drawn from the petitioner outlet were sent for testing at the 3rd respondent laboratory and alleging that the samples failed to meet the requirements of the prescribed standards, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 10-10-2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 7 days as to why further action should not be taken. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been ﬁled seeking a declaration that the orders of the 1st respondent dated 11-09-2008 as well as the 2nd respondent’s notice dated 10-10-2008 as arbitrary and illegal. Though various grounds have been raised by the petitioner assailing the impugned action, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case since admittedly, the enquiry initiated against the petitioner into the alleged irregularities is pending. It is always open to the petitioner to submit its explanation in response to the show cause notice dated 10-10-2008, in which event the respondents would consider the same and after making due enquiry pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Hence, the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause dated 10-10-2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the explanation from the petitioner. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 15-10-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o KLP