Rakesh Oil Company vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited
2003 Latest Caselaw 934 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. This petition is the second round of litigation on the same set of facts by the petitioner. An earlier writ petition being CWP 4832/2003 was disposed of by this court by an order dated 1.8.2003. It was noted in that order that the petitioner's petrol pump was inspected on 22.7.2003 and certain discrepancy was found in the density of high speed diesel in tank No.3. Samples were drawn and sent for testing. The test reports were awaited at that point of time. The petitioner in that petition, however, submitted that he is entitled to a re-test and relied upon Section 20 of the Petroleum Act, 1934.

2. It was made clear in the order dated 1.8.2003 that from a plain reading of the said Section 20, it was apparent that the occasion for a person to ask for a re-test would only arise when the result of the test was indicated. It was clarified that as the result itself had not been indicated, the question of asking for a re-test did not at all arise. In the said order of 1.8.2003, it was also indicated that the report of the test whenever it was made available would also indicate the test of density and if the petitioner is thereafter dissatisfied with the result of the test particularly, in respect of the density, it would be open to him under the provision of Section 20 to ask for a re-test. It now transpires that the test report has come and it has been filed along with the short reply filed on behalf of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation. The test report is now available to the petitioner. Accordingly, in terms of the order dated 1.8.2003, passed in CW.no.4832/2003, it would be open to the petitioner to move an application under the provision of the said Section 20 for having re-testing done. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has already applied for the re-testing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already made a request for re-testing and has deposited the requisite fee for such re-testing in terms of Section 20 of the said Act.

3. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the respondent Indian Oil Corporation has stated that the request for re-testing on behalf of the petitioner could not be entertained for the reason that the dealer had not made the request in accordance with the guidelines while making a representation to the General Manager. It is also stated that re-testing can only be done with regard to the samples which has been drawn by the Investigating Team in the presence of the representatives of the retail outlet dealer and which is jointly sealed in a container by the Investigating Team which was present at the time of investigation.

4. It, therefore, appears that the grievance of the petitioner is that the statutory provisions of Section 20 of the said Act had not been complied with by the respondent. In another words, the petitioner is actually aggrieved by the alleged non-performance of a public duty on the part of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation. This non-performance has occurred de hors the contract between the parties. The alleged non-performance has not occurred in Delhi at all and the entire cause of action with regard to the non-performance of public duties under Section 20 of the said Act has arisen in Uttar Pradesh i.e. beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

5. Therefore, insofar as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, this court cannot entertain this writ petition. It may be pointed out that the maximum sentence that may be imposed on the petitioner of 30 days as per the Marketing Discipline Guidelines,2001 has already been undergone by the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he is willing to deposit the fine of Rs.20,000/-, of course, without prejudice to his right for challenging the sentence and the imposition of the fine. This is a matter which is to be looked into by the respondent and the petitioner is given liberty to approach the respondent in this regard.

6. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction, however, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for the reliefs that are claimed in this petition.