IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8816 OF 2004 Between: M/s V.Lakshman & sons,rep. By its partner, V.Lakshman, s/o.V.Raghava Chary, aged about 75 years, R/o Rajampet, Kadapa District. ......petitioner AND 1. The Senior Divisional Retail Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (I.O.C.Ltd.,) Divisional Officer, G.V.K.Towers, IIIrd Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Ring Road, Vijayawada- 520008. 2. The Senior Depot Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (IOCLtd.,) Tada Depot, Tada, Nellore District. ......Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: M/s.K.Sankaraiah Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the dealer of Indian Oil Corporation Limited questioning the validity of order, dated 28.04.2004, passed by the 1st respondent-Senior Divisional Retail Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Vijayawada, in Ref: VJR/581 whereby the respondents have suspended the sales of all products from the Retail outlet of the petitioner for a period of 15 days with effect from 28.04.2004. The retail outlet of the petitioner was inspected by the staff of the Mobile Laboratory on 24.03.2004 and samples of M.S.Oil, HSD Oil & Mobil 2T Oil were drawn. On 01-04-2004, respondents addressed letter to the petitioner stating that the sample of Mobil Super 2T drawn from his retail outlet has failed in the flash point parameter against the specifications of 70 C minimum and asked him to file his explanation within seven days from the date of receipt thereof. The petitioner filed his explanation on 05-04-2004 requesting the respondents not to suspend the sales till assembly elections. Heeding to the said request, the respondents passed order, dated 06-04-2004, imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioner has already deposited fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, but the impugned order was passed suspending the sales from the petitioner’s retail outlet. Hence, this Writ Petition. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though there was a proper and valid explanation to the show cause notice issued by the petitioner on 01-04-2004, the respondents, without considering the same, passed the impugned order suspending the sales and that the procedure adopted by the respondents is not in conformity with the guidelines notified by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents and it is stated therein that the impugned order is passed only after considering the petitioner’s explanation, dated 05-04-2004. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the copies of show cause notice, explanation filed by the petitioner as well the impugned order. In his explanation, dated 05.04.2000, the petitioner has categorically stated that while drawing 2T oil from the barrel, the can was not properly flushed and the said plastic can was earlier used by the pump attendant for topping up the generator with diesel. Precisely, from a reading of the explanation, it is clear that the sample drawn did not meet the standards not on account of adulteration, but due to the fact that the can was not flushed properly before drawing the sample. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no finding is recorded on the explanation offered by the petitioner. In any event, having regard to the allegations leveled, the petitioner has already paid the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- on 16.04.2004. This Court, at the stage of admission, granted interim suspension of the impugned order on 05.05.2004 and the said order has been in force since then. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, in the absence of any finding on the explanation offered by him, it is a fit case to set aside impugned order, dated 28.04.2004, passed by the 1st respondent-Senior Divisional Retail Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Vijayawada, in Ref: VJR/581. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any refund of the fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, already deposited by him. __________________ (R.Subhash Reddy, J) 17th August, 2009. Ivd/lur