1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH:INDORE (SINGLE BENCH: HON.MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) WRIT PETITION NO.8245/2009 M/s.Rameshwardayal Mangal through Proprietor Smt. Bharti Devi W/o Late Arun Gupta .... Petitioner Vs. State of MP through Secretary & two others .... Respondents For petitioner: Shri Umesh Gajankush, Advocate. For respondents: Mrs. Jyoti Tiwari, learned GA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting:- _______________________________________________________ O R D E R (Passed on 07th September, 2011) The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 23/6/2003, cancelling the dealership license and forfeiting the security deposit as affirmed by the Appellate order dated 24/9/2003 and the revisional order dated 21/7/2009. [2] The petitioner during the relevant time was having a licence to run the petrol pump issued under the provisions of M.P. Motor Spirit and High Spirit Diesel Oil License and Control (Licensee and Control)Order, 1980 (for short ”Control Order, 1980”) and was 2 accordingly running a petrol pump. A sample was taken from his petrol pump on 13/6/1995 which was received by the Laboratory on 17/6/1995 and as per the laboratory report dated 27/6/1995, the said sample failed to meet the requirement of final boiling point in the distillation test, therefore, the petitioner was issued the show cause notice dated 21/8/1995 for cancellation of the licence and forfeiture of the security amount. Petitioner submitted the reply dated 7/10/1995, thereafter the Collector had passed the order dated 23/6/2003 cancelling the licence and forfeiting the security amount. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner was dismissed by order dated 24/9/2003 against which the petitioner preferred a revision before the State. The revision was dismissed by the State by order dated 21/7/2009. [3] The respondents have filed the reply to the Writ Petition taking the stand that the three authorities have already examined the matter and decided against the petitioner's and that the sample which was taken from the petitioner's petrol pump had failed in the test. A further stand has been taken that licence has been cancelled and the security amount has been forfeited after following the due procedure. [4] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while cancelling the licence, the due procedure has not been followed and petitioner was not given proper opportunity. The petitioner was 3 not allowed to cross examine the Assistant Food Officer and that Clause 11 of the Control Order 1980 was not complied with. [5] Learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition have already been examined and that there was no specific ground raised by the petitioner in respect of violation of Clause 11. He further submitted that Clause 11 has duly been complied with. [6] I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. [7] The report of Distillation Test by the laboratory has been placed on record which clearly shows that the sample taken from the petitioner's petrol pump failed to meet the requirement of final boiling point in distillation test. The test was found to be negative. The Collector has passed a detailed reasoned speaking order, cancelling the licence of the petitioner and forfeiting the security amount under Clause 11 and 15 of the Control Order, 1980. The petitioner's case was again examined in appeal by the Commissioner, who after considering the grounds raised in appeal, rejected the same. The State has also rejected the revision petition vide order dated 18th August, 2009. The three authorities/State have concurrently held against the petitioner. This Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction while considering the order passed by the 4 original appellate and revisional authority and no interference is required unless a ground for the same is made out. [8] The petitioner has raised a ground that the procedure has not been followed whereas the record indicates that the sample taken by the petitioner was sent to the laboratory where the test was performed, thereafter the petitioner was given a show cause notice to which he had submitted the reply and he was also afforded opportunity of hearing before the Collector and thereafter the impugned order dated 23/6/2003 was passed. [9] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the ground relating to non compliance of the requirement of Clause 11 of the Control Order 1980 as amended by Notification dated 15th April, 1982 in respect of obtaining the opinion of the oil company with whom the agreement has been made by the licensee, but no such specific ground was raised by the petitioner before the original appellate or revisional authority nor such a specific ground has been raised in this Writ Petition. Therefore, the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. Such a question of fact raised by the petitioner for the first time at the stage of final arguments cannot be gone into. Even otherwise the reply filed by the respondents indicates that a report was obtained from the oil company and thereafter the impugned order was passed. For the aforesaid reason, the judgment of this Court in the matter of M/s. Habib Nathu 5 Owners of Diesel Pump Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1988 MP 283 relied upon by the counsel for petitioner does not help him. On perusal of the record, it is also noticed that no mandatory provision has been violated by the respondents. [10] The petitioner has also raised a ground that he was not allowed to cross examine the Assistant Food Officer or the laboratory Assistant, but a perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority indicates that no such prayer was made by the petitioner before the original authority. Before this Court also the petitioner has failed to point out any such written request made before the original authority. Thus, such a ground cannot be accepted. The petitioner has also raised the issue of sending the second sample, but the record indicates that the second sample is required to be sent to the laboratory within 10 days. The sample was taken on 13/6/1995, but no prayer was made by the petitioner for resending the sample within 10 days. The original authority has noted that it was open to the petitioner himself to send the sample within 10 days to the laboratory and submit the report which he has failed to do. Thus, there is no substance in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. [11] So far as the violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the 6 petitioner was given full opportunity before the original authority. He was given a show cause notice and was also given opportunity of personal hearing. Thus, the impugned action does not suffer the vice of violation of principles of natural justice. [12] In view of the aforesaid, no ground for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Prakash Shrivastava) JUDGE VM