HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10755 of 2002 Date : 27.10.2011 Between : Sama Satyanarayana Reddy. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, Khammam & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10755 of 2002 ORDER : The petitioner is an Indian Oil Corporation dealer at Manuguru in Khammam District. In this writ petition, he has questioned the order passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector, dated 10.01.2002, issued in Rc.No.E-373-2001, in exercise of powers under Clause 33 of A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980, granting permission to the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, to launch prosecution against the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a dealer in 1983 and has been in the said business since then. It is stated that on 03.06.2001 and 05.06.2001, the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer has inspected the retail outlet of the petitioner and collected samples of high speed diesel, suspecting its adulteration with kerosene oil, and sent the said samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for analysis. As the analysis report indicated adulteration of petroleum products to an extent of 10%, the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer has addressed the competent authority i.e. the 1st respondent-District Collector, for grant of permission to prosecute the petitioner. Based on the said communication from the 2nd respondent and also on the test report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, the 1st respondent-District Collector, by impugned order, dated 10.01.2002, has permitted the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manuguru to launch prosecution against the petitioner for the alleged adulteration of petroleum products. The impugned order is questioned mainly on the ground that the distillery range and flash point range are within the permissible limits even as per the report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, but the alleged adulteration is merely based on the Gas- Chromatography test, which is not the test prescribed under the provisions of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998. Though a lengthy counter affidavit is filed denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, there is no specific answer with regard to the allegation of petitioner that the Gas-Chromatography test is not one of the tests contemplated in Schedule-I to the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998. The counter merely speaks of the test report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory and states that as adulteration is proved in the tests conducted at the Laboratory, sanction proceedings are issued for prosecution of the petitioner. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for respondents, and perused the test report given by the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and also the impugned sanction proceedings issued by the District Collector. The report given by the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory contains a note at the bottom, which reads as under: “Note: Quantitative estimation of the liquids in the above item Nos.1 and 2 (HSD) by instrumental analysis using Gas- Chromatography indicated the presence of “Kerosene oil” as adulterant to the extent of 10% in each of them.” Section 2(a) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 defines adulteration as, “Introduction of any foreign substance into motor spirit/high speed diesel illegally or unauthorisedly with the result that the product does not conform to the requirements and specification of the product indicated in Schedule I”. The parameters required for diesel fuels and the method of testing those fuels, is given in the Schedules annexed to the aforesaid 1998 Order. In this case, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the test, namely, “Gas- Chromatography test” is not amongst the tests indicated in Schedule-I to the 1998 Order, and any test conducted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, which is not prescribed in Schedule- I, cannot be relied on for the purpose of sanctioning prosecution on the ground of adulteration. Inspite of such specific contention of the petitioner, there is no answer in the counter filed by the respondents and a perusal of the schedules attached to the 1998 Order clearly shows that the Gas-Chromatography test is not amongst the tests prescribed for detection of adulteration in petroleum products. It is further to be noticed that when a clarification was sought for on Gas-Chromatography test by the Additional Director, Civil Supplies Department from the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, the State Level Co-ordinator of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation has issued a letter, dated 01.01.2002, stating that the said test is being used for analysis of organic compounds like Benzene and Toulene etc., and that it is not being used for detection of adulteration in fuels. The aforesaid clarification also refers to a letter, dated 23.10.2001, issued by the Chief Quality Control Manager of Indian Oil Corporation addressed to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai, indicating that the scope of detecting adulteration in petroleum fuels using Gas- Chromatography test, is misleading. When the Gas- Chromatography test is not one of the tests specified in the schedules attached to the 1998 Order, and further, when there is clarification from the oil Companies stating that such test is misleading, there appears no basis for the District Collector for issuing the impugned sanction proceedings to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged adulteration of petroleum products. In that view of the matter, the impugned order granting sanction for prosecution of petitioner, based on the test report which is not prescribed in the 1998 Order, is liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings, dated 10.01.2002, issued in Rc.No.E- 373-2001 by the 1st respondent-District Collector, is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th October 2011 Kvsn/ajr