C.W.P. No.7562 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7562 of 2011 Date of Decision.15.07.2011 M/s Hamara Pump, village Phallar, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Proprietor Hari Singh son of Sukhdan Singh .....Petitioner Versus District Food Supply Controller, Bathinda and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Mittal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Respondent No.5 set ex parte. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petition is filed challenging the order sealing the premises at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 4. The petitioner is a retailer for petroleum products and on some complaints of adulteration at the petitioner's premises, it appears that there had been a raid conducted on 16.09.2010 by a team, consisting of SHO, PS Rama Mandi, Tehsildar Talwandi Sabo and AFSO, Maur Mandi. They took the samples of HSD (High Speed Dieseal) from the tanks of retail outlet and after sealing the service station tanks, registered a complaint in FIR No.104 dated 16.09.2010 for certain offences under the Essential Commodities Act and IPC. Admittedly, the samples could not be examined at the place where the dispatches had been made and they had again collected the samples C.W.P. No.7562 of 2011 -2- on 23.04.2011 and that samples met with BIS specification in the above test. It is stated that there were eight drums of kerosene oil, which were also tested, which the report says does not meet with the specification. There is nothing brought on record to show that there had been any adulteration in respect of the petroleum products of which the petitioner was the retailer. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation itself was not taking any action of any adulteration nor do they have any complaint of adulteration for the petitioner. With no records available with the State, preventing the petitioner from carrying with the trade would amount infringement of right to carry on with trade which the petitioner has, under a contract with the HPC. Sealing of premises cannot be sustained at this stage. 2. The sealing done, which is impugned in the writ petition is ordered to be opened and the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for in the writ petition. The petitioner is entitled to obtain supply from the 5th respondent as per the contract. This order has no bearing to any criminal case, which has already been registered. That case will be taken up and dealt with by the Magistrate in accordance with law. 3. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 15, 2011 Pankaj*