Mi- :^il;:, -^- tt ^tf^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J W.P.(c) No.4008 of 2009 PETIITIONERS 1. 2. 3. ^l? y::jlll. ;-f:ii;%i M/s Subhash Prasad Sujeet Kumar, Proprietor/Transporter IOCL Bhilai-III, bepot, Subhash Prasad Sao, S/o Late Shri Sharda Prasad Sao, aged about 41 years R/o Pushpak Nagar, Junvani Road, Bhilai, Ourg (CG) AAohit Road Lines, Through Proprietor/Transporter IOCL Bhilai-III bepot, Suraj Prasad Sao, S/o Late Shri Ram Prosad Sao, aged about 31 years, ft/o Pushpak Nagar, Junvani Road, Bhitai, Durg (CG) Sujeet Kumar SQO (HUF) S/o Late Shri Sharda Prasad Sao, aged about 34 years, Proprietor / Transporter Indian Oil BhilQi'-III Depot, Sujeet Kumar Sao (HUF) R/o Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhitai, Durg (C(?) liii9 ^^^f^ 8!lfi'la; :'^i|£:i tv' i|S ,iir ^•1111 ;;®; is1: ^fiiii a9K "M[' 11; :iM •^i^\ 'lill^ lil: .;iR - RESPONDENTS 4. M/s Sharda Prasad Sao/Transporter BPCL Bhilai- III Depot, Through Proprietor Sujeet Kumar Sao, S/o Sharda Prasad Sao, R/o Kurud Road, Kohka Bhilai Durg (CG) 5. M/s Subhash Prasad Sao <& Sons Transporter BPCL Bhilai-III Depot through propn'etor Subhash Prasad Sao, S/o Late Shri Sharda Prasad Sao, R/o Puspak Nagar/Junwani Road. Vs 1.5tate of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Food Controller Food Office, burg (CG) 3. Collector (Food) burg (CG) 4. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Depot Bhilai-III, Distt. Durg (C(5) 5. Marketing Officer, Bharat iill te,.^!ST^-. a& 't.''^^ "^•^ ••^- ^0 ''•'•^-^^-^^•' .;-:,1,.^ 31: iSII? iiffi! ;:]i:i'; :M811' ;t;l;l^i, I?-':::11^1'li1' ^Si. :^ illlly ^ir- w' .:ft '^s-iis; «li Petroteum Ltd. Depot. Bhilai-III, bist. Durg (C(?) 6.1ndian Oil Corporation Ltd. Through DGM (OPS) MPSO 16 Arera.Hills Jail Road, Bhopal (MP) Present : Shri TK Tiwari and Shri Manish Sharma, learned counset for the petitioner. Shri ShQshank ThQkur/learned PL for the State/respondents No. lto3. Shri PS Koshy, leorned counsel for respondent No.4 <& 6. Shri SQnjay K. Agrawal, tearned counsel for respondent No,5. ORALORDER (Passed on 23rd September, 2009) Dhirendra Mishra, J The petitioner by the instant petition has impugned the order of Annexure P/5 dated 24.6.2009 passed by the Collector (Food Section) Distt. Durg, whereby the AAarketing Officer of the IndiQn Oit/Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Bhilai-3 bepot, Distt. burg, has been directed to bon transportQtion of petrot/diesel, blue kerosene by tankers owned by petitioners company, with immediate effect in the publicinterest as they are engaged in black-marketing of blue kerosene. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the above order has been passed without any show-cause notice to the petitioners and the same is adverselyaffecting the entire businessof the petitioners as the respondent-Corporations hove stopped the petitioners' fleet of tankers from lifting petroleum products from their depots. He further submits that theorder impugned, on the face of it, is without ^ ^.:^ MW^ :M 'w'\ ^-.. m !"gi'i- t li1 1 '%^r :!:;li:.: a, :^^ 1»1 il.,i" ?%^i^i 11 ^'tili ^^^- :'!:!?;ii.;''' ,:'aiii .';^'f: S9& ;18in ^ ^ 1 ^^ 'Jlil^ ^l^lt' .' Sl.h ^,^:!' ^• s jurisdiction and illegal as the same has been passed without following the principles of natural justice and without issuing any notice. Shri PS Koshy and Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel , appearing for the respondents No. 4 to 6 jointly submit that the Oil Corporations haveatready stopped delivering petroleum products through tankers of the petitioners and the transportation is bein9 arranged through some other contractors. Shri Shashank Thakur, tearned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that the Licensing Authority-District Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under Ctause-6 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 has passed the impugned order in the , public interest as the petitioners-companies were engaged in black- marketing of essential commodity-blue kerosene, which is supplied under the Public Distribution System scheme throughout the State. However, he fairly submits that before passing the above order, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and the licences of the petitioners issued under the Kerosene Control Order have neither been suspended nor cancelled. Having heard learned counset for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,considenng that the order impugned has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and it amounts to virtually canceting the licence issued to the petitioners, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order, so far as it relates to the petitioners herein is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-Licensing Authority to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as per relevant Control Grders applicable in the matter. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge