THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19050 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed assailing the letter dated 06.09.2003 of the Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam, suspending the sales and supplies of Motor Spirit (MS) High Speed Diesel (HSD) and Lubricants at the petitioner's outlet for a period of 15 days and imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner is a retail outlet dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in Visakhapatnam dealing with MS, HSD and Lubricants. The Deputy Manager of the respondent-Corporation took the lubricant sample (Mak 2T) from the petitioner's outlet on 11.07.2003, conducted tests and having found that the sample failed to meet the specifictions in respect of colour, elements and PIB, issued show cause notice dated 05.08.2003 to show cause as to why action should not be taken against it under the terms and conditions of Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence (DPSL) Agreement dated 24.11.1988, and in response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent without considering his application issued the impugned letter suspending the sales and supplies of MS, HSD and Lubricants for a period of 15 days and imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. At the stage of admission, this Court, by an order dated 09.09.2003 in WPMP.No.23856 of 2003, suspended the impugned letter to the extent of suspending the sales and supplies of all the products and directed the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/- and the said order continued during the pendency of the writ petition. Learned cousnel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 09.09.2003, the petitioner has deposited the penalty of Rs.10,000/-. He further submitted that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before suspending his licence and in the absence of clear indication in the show cause notice to suspend the sales and supplies, the impugned order passed is in violation of priciples of natural jsutice. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, submitted that the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner as per the marketing guidelines framed by the Corporation. I have perused the material available on record. In the show cause notice, it was merely stated to show cause why action should not be taken under the terms and conditions of DPSL Agreement of Dealership and even, in the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he has not denied the allegations levelled against him, but assured to concentrate on staff to avoid recurrence of such incidents in future. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been running the retail outlet during the pendency of the writ petition without any further recurrence of such incident, interest of justice would be met if the punishment imposed by the respondent- Corporation is modified and confined to the extent of penalty imposed on the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned letter dated 06.09.2003 is set aside to the extent of suspending sales and supplies to the petitioner’s outlet confining the same to the extent of penalty of Rs.10,000/-. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date:06.08.2009 usd