IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23162 of 2002 Between: M/s.V.Rasaiah, N.P.Reddy & Co., rep. By its Managing Partner, V.L.V.S.Krishna Kumar, S/o Rosaiah, aged about 32 years, Occ: BPC Dealer, Leela Mahal Road, Kothapet, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001. 2. The Territory Manager (Retail), Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vijayawada Retail Territory, Kattubadipalem Post, Pinapaka Village, Kondapalli, Vijayawada, Krishna District Pin 521 228. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of “Writ of Mandamus” declaring the proceedings, dated 22.10.2002 in proceedings No.VJT.GNT 6 issue by the 2nd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and Market Discipline Guidelines issued by the 1st respondent Corporation and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.A.PADMANABHAM Counsel for the Respondent: MR.G.S.R.ANJANEYALU MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The court made the following order: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23162 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is a dealer of petroleum products of M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, the first respondent herein. It established outlets at Chodavaram and Guntur. On the intervening night of 23/24.08.2002, samples were drawn from the outlet at Chodavaram by the Officials of Civil Supplies Department, alleging that the product was adulterated. Steps were initiated under the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractice in Supply and Distribution) Order, 1998. Stating that on 24.08.2002 samples were drawn by their Officials at 9.20 am from the outlet at Chodavaram, the respondents herein issued a show-cause notice, dated 13.09.2002 to the petitioner. A copy of the report of analysis was also enclosed. The petitioner submitted its explanation on 14.10.2002 denying the very factum of drawing the samples, on the ground that the outlet was sealed by the Civil Supplies Department in the wee hours of 24.08.2002. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent passed an order, dated 22.10.2002, imposing a fine of Rs.20,000/- and suspending the licence for a period of 30 days. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the Civil Supplies Department conducted raid on the pump at 23/24.08.2002 and there was no possibility for the respondents to draw separate samples once the outlet was sealed. It is stated that W.P.No.7004 of 2003 filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Civil Supplies Department was allowed, and that the action initiated by the respondents in relation to the same product cannot be sustained in law. Heard Sri P.V.A.Padmanabham, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. There is some dispute as to the point of time at which the respondents have drawn the samples. It is a matter of record that the petroleum outlet of the petitioner at Chodavaram was inspected by the Officials of Civil Supplies Department on the intervening night of 23/24.08.2002 and the samples were drawn. While according to the petitioner, the outlet was sealed in the early hours of 24.08.2002, the respondents contend that sealing took place only at 3.00 pm on that day. If the version of the petitioner is to be accepted, there was no possibility for the respondents to draw samples from the outlet. Assuming that the respondents also have drawn samples on the same day, the fact remains that the samples drawn by the Civil Supplies Department on the one hand and the respondents on the other hand, are of the same product. The petitioner filed W.P.No.7004 of 2003 challenging the proceedings initiated by the Civil Supplies Department against it. In its judgment, dated 10.12.2003, (reported in 2004 (2) ALT 105), this Court held that the orders, dated 21.03.2003 and 12.06.2003, challenged therein, are illegal and arbitrary, and were accordingly set aside. A finding was recorded to the effect that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which constitutes the basis, is incorrect. Though the parameters for analysis by the respondents on the one hand and by the Civil Supplies Department on the other hand may be somewhat different, the fact remains that the whole basis for initiation of action by the respondents against the petitioner was the raid undertaken by the Civil Supplies Department. Once this Court recorded a specific finding on merits and held that the petitioner was not guilty of any charges levelled against it, the impugned order cannot be sustained for the same reasons. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt.24.11.2008 VGB