IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8198 of 2008 Between: M/s.K.A.N.& Sons, Dealer :Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 75 Feet Road, Visakhapatnam-530001 rep.by its Authorised representative Sri K.Venkanna ..... PETITIONER AND Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., rep.by the Area Sales manager,Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. E.MANOHER, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR.P.KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondent: MR. SRINIVAS FOR MR.P.V.SANJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in suspending sales vide Random Inspection Report, dated 10.04.2008 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a dealer of retail outlet of petroleum products of the respondent Corporation. On 10.04.2008, a Random Inspection was made by the Area Sales Manager, Visakhapatnam, the Senior Manager (Vigilance) and the Maintenance Technician-cum-Pump Operator of the respondent Corporation. Following the same, an inspection report was prepared. The report shows that the density and other tests were within the permissible limits. However, in column No.6, it is mentioned as under: “For DU MIDCo Sl.No.04KH 1038 V (HSD) duplicate gears observed. Hence sales suspended at meter reading & Dip reading as mentioned therein.” Questioning the suspension of sales, the present writ petition is filed. Heard Sri E.Manoher, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the inspection report clearly shows that the spot test conducted in respect of all the four dispensing units showed that they conform to the stipulated parameters, and the action of the respondent in exercising the power of suspension on the purported ground in respect of one of the dispensing units that they have observed the duplicate gears is arbitrary. The learned counsel further contended that the very format on which the impugned order is passed does not provide for suspension of sales on the above-mentioned ground. Sri Srinivas, learned counsel representing the respondent Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that under 6.1.5 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, if any mechanism/fittings/gear is found fitted in the dispensing unit with the intention of manipulating, penal action will be taken as per Appendix-1. Sl.No.4 of Appendix-1 prescribed the penalty of termination in such cases. He, therefore, submitted that pending further enquiry, the respondent suspended the sales. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since an enquiry is envisaged into the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, I refrain from going into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel. Pending enquiry, I feel ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to conduct sales in respect of remaining three (3) dispensing units while confining the order of the respondent Corporation to the dispensing unit relating to HSD 04KH 1038 V in respect of which the petitioner is facing the allegation of using duplicate gears. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondent is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10830 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th APRIL, 2008 Note: issue operative portion by ‘wire’ at party’s costs. B/o kvni