Bombay High Court
Madhuri Gas Service, Through Its ... vs The Indian Oil Corporation, ... on 1 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.
WRIT PETITION No. 16 OF 2015
Madhuri Gas Service,
through its Proprietor
Sunil M. Malwe,
Indane Gas Distributor,
Shop No. 129, Old Cotton Market,
Amravati. .... PETITIONER.
-VERSUS -
1. The Indian Oil Corporation,
Office Area, 1st Floor,
Akarshan Busiplex,
Central Bazar Road,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.
2. The Chief Area Manager,
Indane Area Office,
Indian Oil Corporation,
1st Floor, Akarshan Busiplex,
Central Bazar Road,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.
3. The Manager (LPG-S),
Indane Area Office,
Indian Oil Corporation,
1st Floor, Akarshan Busiplex,
Central Bazar Road,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS.
....
Shri Akshay A. Naik Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Rohit Joshi Advocate for the Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:22:38 :::
2
CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.
DATED : 01st March, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :
Looking to the nature of controversy, matter is heard finally.
2. Impugned order dated 18.12.2014 imposing penalty upon the
petitioner is already stayed by this Court on 02.1.2015.
3. Advocate Joshi for the respondents has at the threshold
raised a preliminary objection. He relied upon Clause 3.11.1 of Marketing
Discipline Guidelines to urge that against the impugned order, remedy of
appeal is provided.
4. Advocate Naik submits that the show cause notice as also
the impugned order is without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is passed on
behalf of Manager (LPG-S), respondent no. 3 by a Sales Officer and he
wants to demonstrate that there cannot be any such delegation. He also
adds that the order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice
and, therefore, availability of alternate remedy cannot act as a bar.
5. In the light of preliminary objection and the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner, we have considered the controversy.
Impugned order dated 18.12.2014 notices certain violations. In its
paragraphs 1 and 2 for those violations, penalties have been inflicted. In
paragraph 1 it is mentioned that total cases of 341 customers have been
verified. However, it is an admitted position that physical verification has
been only in cases of at the most 50 or then 119 customers. That
verification is also not with prior notice to the petitioner.
6. Effort of respondents is to demonstrate that petitioner has
accepted the position and on the basis of that admission, impugned order
has been passed.
7. The violations noticed in paragraph 1 of impugned order are
contained in clause (a) to (d). We find that for this violation no penalty has
been inflicted. Vide clause (b) it is mentioned that the Field Officer has
verified fifty persons at random out of which only ten were found to be
original customers while remaining 40 persons were found using LPG
connection of others at different places. The petitioner has not accepted
use of such connection at different addresses by any of its customers. As
per clause (c) after placing reliance upon the reply dated 14.7.2014 it is
mentioned that balance customers left out were 289, i.e. two customers
who were transferred + 50 which were verified at random have been
subtracted from 341 and balance figure of 289 has been mentioned. In
respect of balance customers, the irregularity noticed is, only 72 were
original customers and balance 217 persons using LPG connections of
their relatives. Petitioner has pointed out that use of connection by the
relatives continues after the death of original customer and in other similar
contingencies.
8.
Vide clause (d) of paragraph 1 it has been mentioned that the
Field Officer verified 72 customers mentioned in the reply by the petitioner
dated 14.7.2014 and as per survey of Field Officer 69 customers were
found to be original while balance three persons were found not to be
original customers.
9. Perusal of the reply dated 14.7.2014 submitted by the
petitioner in this respect shows a statement that these 72 consumers lost
subscription vouchers or SV affidavit with KYC. Thus the petitioner has not
accepted any irregularity even in connection with these 72 customers.
10. We have perused the reply mentioned supra as also the reply
submitted by petitioner submitted on 16.6.2014. In none of these replies
petitioner has accepted any irregularity. Material collected in verification
after reply submitted by petitioner is not put to it and no opportunity to meet
it is extended. In this situation, it is apparent that the action taken cannot
be sustained. In any case, verification of 69 customers done by the Field
Officer after receipt of reply from the petitioner is without any opportunity to
it. Therefore, we find that principles of natural justice have been violated in
the present matter.
11. In the light of this finding, as interim orders are operating
since more than a year, we are not inclined to relegate the petitioner to an
appellate forum. The respondents can set right the procedural lacuna and
extend to petitioner suitable opportunity including that of personal hearing,
if found necessary.
12. Accordingly, keeping all other rival contentions open and with
liberty to respondents to proceed against the petitioner as per law, we set
aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2014.
13. Rule made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
/TA/
