THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.7587 of 2009 Dated 24th June, 2011 Between: M/s.Siva Jyothi Enterprises …Petitioner And The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, rep.by its Managing Director, G-9, Ali Yaverjung Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai –400 051 …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy Counsel for respondents: Sri Thoom Srinivas The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in sealing the dispensing units of the petroleum retail outlet of the petitioner located at Door No.9-1-44/1/2, New Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The retail outlet of the petitioner was inspected by the Assistant Manager, Retail Lube Sales of respondent No.2 Division, on 28.02.2009, who has drawn three samples of lubes from the pump island and after completing the sample procedure, he has left the place. On 17.03.2009, the impugned proceedings were issued by respondent No.1, signed by respondent No.3, to the effect that the sample did not meet the specification and therefore, penal action is proposed as per the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005 for imposing a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and suspension of sales and supplies of all the products for a period of 30 days. The petitioner was called upon to submit its explanation. Assailing these proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner has joined respondent Nos.5 and 6 as eo- nominee parties and alleged mala fides against both of them. Neither of these respondents filed counter affidavits, even though a counter affidavit and an application to vacate stay are filed by respondent No.1-Corporation. At the hearing, Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that in ordinary course, the petitioner would not have filed this writ petition questioning the show-cause notice, but due to the detailed reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this writ petition is filed. He submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have acted mala fide and by subjecting the petitioner to the disciplinary proceedings, it will not receive fair justice. Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, submitted that while mala fides have been attributed to respondent Nos.5 and 6, the authority which gave show-cause notice is respondent No.3, who is superior to respondent Nos.5 and 6 and therefore, the said respondent will consider the explanation of the petitioner in an objective manner and exhibit absolute impartiality in finalising the case. On perusing the serious allegations made against respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing that even though respondent No.3 is stationed at Visakhapatnam, there is a likelihood of respondent Nos.5 and 6 having influence over him, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate that an authority, which is superior to respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 would deal with the petitioner’s case. Accordingly, the Executive Director of respondent No.1- Corporation for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, is directed to deal with the petitioner’s case pertaining to show-cause notice, dated 17.03.2009. Respondent No.3 shall supply a copy of the test report referred to in the show-cause notice immediately on the petitioner approaching him. The petitioner shall file its explanation within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of the explanation, the Executive Director shall consider and pass an appropriate order in terms of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005 and other relevant statutory provisions, within a period of one month on receipt of explanation from the petitioner. Till the disposal of the proceedings by the Executive Director, the interim order, dated 09.04.2000, shall continue. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9964 of 2009 is disposed of and W.V.M.P.No.880 of 2010 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th June, 2011 VGB