Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Executive Director Retail ... vs K.Rama Devi on 16 November, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.781 and 502 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per UDPR, J)
Heard learned counsels for appellants and learned counsels
for respondents and with their consent, these writ appeals are
disposed of at the admission stage.
2. As can be seen, writ petition No.17531 of 2010 is disposed
of by the learned Single Judge on the following main observations:
"So whether there was a deliberate intention to cause
adulteration or whether it is a mistake is an issue which
will have a bearing on the ultimate conclusion. This is a
subsequent event which can be taken note of. Therefore,
this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition should be
partially allowed and the Executive Director of the Indian
Oil Corporation/the appellate authority (the 3rdrespondent)
is directed to conduct a further hearing in this matter for
the purpose of deciding on the issue of adulteration,
particularly in view of the fact that there is a change in the
stand of the driver. Therefore, the order of the
3rd respondent dated 21.05.2010 is set aside. He is
directed to go into the issue once again by considering the
notarized affidavit of the driver Mr. Papaiah and his letter
dated 16.04.2009 addressed to the Investigating Officer
and also findings of Criminal Court in C.C.NO.151 of
2010. Thereafter he should decide whether it is a pure
mistake or a deliberate attempt of adulteration. This entire
exercise should be completed within a period of 45 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
petitioner should also be given a chance to appear either
directly or through authorized counsel to argue the matter.
Opportunity should be given to the appellant to
substantiate her case. Similarly, the Indian Oil
Corporation authorities also should be given an
opportunity to explain their stand. Thereafter a reasoned
order should be passed. The order dated 21.05.2010 is set
aside for this limited purpose and one opportunity is
directed to be given to the petitioner. this order is passed
to enable the 3rd respondent to consider the subsequent
development, namely the order of the Court dated
30.12.2010 in C.C.No.151 of 2010."
3. As can be seen from the above order, whether the
adulteration was result by deliberate intention or by mistake, is
purely a question of fact and which has to be decided having regard
to the available material, hence the learned Single Judge was of the
view that the matter can be remitted back to the
3rd respondent in the writ petition with a direction that the said
authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties
shall pass the orders.
4. Having taken the totality of the facts and circumstances, we
are of the considered view that there is no error either on facts or in
law in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to
warrant our interference.
5. In that view, these appeals are dismissed upholding the order
of the learned Single Judge, dated 18.04.2022 in W.P. No.17531 of
2010 and parties are directed to scrupulously follow the directions
therein. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
_________________________
T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
16.11.2022
SS
