IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4400 of 2009. Date of Decision: 20th March, 2009. M/s Rajesh Oil Corporation Petitioner through Ms. Manisha Lamba, Advocate Versus Haryana State ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 22.1.2008 and 12.6.2008 [Annexures P-5 and P-6] whereby its licence as a Wholesale Kerosene Oil Dealer granted for the supply of Kerosene to the Depot Holders in the Districts of Gurgaon and Mewat, has been cancelled and the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation order has also been dismissed. The petitioner lifted 12000 liters of Kerosene oil from the Oil Terminal, Rewari, on 23.10.2007 for Mewat District. It was required to be decanted to various Fare Price Shops of Mewat for ultimate distribution to the eligible consumers. The Authorities in the Food and Supplies Department received a complaint regarding non- supply of the Kerosene Oil to the Depot Holders or its diversion/black-marketing by the Wholesaler. Based upon the said complaint, an FIR No. 165 dated 28.10.2007 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was lodged against the petitioner and some other persons at Police Station, Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat. Thereafter, the officials of the Food and Supplies Department conducted a checking on 30.10.2007. It has been observed by the District Magistrate, Mewat as well as the Appellate Authority that the petitioner was required to decant the Kerosene oil to 11 Depot Holders. Out of them, seven Depot Holders have reported that the petitioner cheated them by taking their signatures in advance without actually delivering the Kerosene oil. One more Depot Holder also made a similar complaint. The rest of the three Depot Holders who were not available during the course of inquiry conducted on 29.10.2007 later on submitted that their signatures on Field Books and Sale Registers were obtained by the petitioner on the assurance that Kerosene oil shall be delivered to them shortly but it was never done so. The Competent Authority, namely, the District Magistrate, Mewat as well as the Appellate Authority both have turned down the petitioner's plea that the Kerosene Oil was delivered by it to the Depot Holders in the presence of Sub Inspector M.I.Khan of the Food and Supplies Department. The aforesaid conclusion has been drawn by the Appellate Authority after observing as follows:- “There is also no record with the appellant to prove that it actually delivered the oil in the presence of the concerned officials of the Food & Supplies Department. This is a fatal lapse which seems to have been committed by design. Every kerosene oil wholesaler has to report arrival of his tank lorry and then decant the contents only in the presence of the concerned Inspector/Sub Inspector of the Food & Supplies Department and his signatures to this effect have to be obtained. Such instructions have been circulated time and again especially vide memo No. 3S-/2005/17363 dated 21.9.2005. It was never done in this case. The behaviour of the appellant firm proves that it misappropriated the kerosene oil in question and deprived the genuine PDS beneficiaries from its benefits. The PDS kerosene oil is not a private property of the kerosene dealers; actually means unlike other petroleum products. It is a “Controlled Item” whose transportation, storage, distribution etc. is completely regulated by public authorities. The appellant was bound to associate the concerned Food & Supplies Department Officials while transporting and decanting this oil within Mewat District. However, he failed to do so”. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered opinion that the view formed by the Licensing as well as the Appellate Authority is based upon correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances and no interference by this Court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction is called for. In fact, no meaningful argument could be advanced to dislodge the factual conclusions drawn by the authorities. The gravity of misconduct proved to have been committed by the petitioner fully justifies the quantum of punishment also. The petitioner, or for that matter, any other black marketer needs to be dealt with strictly and no leniency or mitigation can be shown towards them by a writ court. Dismissed. March 20, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE