Karnataka High Court
M/S Sathya And Co vs State Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2022
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.2099/2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S SATHYA AND CO.
NH 17, KARWAR ROAD
KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT-576201
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
K PRABHAKA SHETTY
S/O LATE A R SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT "SUPRABHA" ,
SUBHANIDHI COLONY
POST HANGALORE
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF
WEIGHT AND MEASURES
8TH MAIN ROAD
MOUNT JOY EXTENSION
HANUMANTHA NAGAR
BANASHANKAI 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU-560050
REPT. BY ITS CONTROLLER.
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
2
THE COMPANIES ACT 1 OF 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9
ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051
REPT. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
AT NO.139, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD
CHENNAI-600045
TAMILNADU STATE.
4. THE STATE OFFICER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
THESTATE OFFICER
NO.29, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
P KALINGA RAO ROAD
BENGALURU-560027
REPT. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
5. THE FIELD OFFICER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
MARKETING DIVISION
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
ABBAKKA NAGAR, KOTTARA
KULOOR FERRY ROAD
MANGALORE-575006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1
SRI DHANARAJ JOSHI, SR.COUNSEL A/W
SRI VACHAN H.U., ADV. FOR R2-R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 14.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-5
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO 5 TO RESTORE
THE DISPENSING UNIT I.E NOZZLE WITH FIP NO.02 OF DU WITH
MODEL NO.TIQ2224555N DU M1848267 TO ITS ORIGINAL
FORTHWITH.
3
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner, a dealer with the second respondent-
Indian Oil Corporation Limited is before this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the
correctness and legality of Annexure-A dated 14.11.2020
whereby the 5th respondent suspended one nozzle of
dispensing unit of the petitioner for short delivery and
directed recalibration and re-stamping before commencement
of sale and for a direction to restore the dispensing unit.
2. Heard Sri.S.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for respondent
No.1 and Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, learned Senior Counsel for
Sri.Vachan H.U., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is a dealer of petroleum products of the second
respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited. During the
routine inspection by the 5th respondent, it was found that
there was short delivery of product from one nozzle with FIP
No.02 of the petitioner-Unit. Based on the inspection report,
5th respondent issued Annexure-A directing the petitioner to
get recalibrated and re-stamping of the nozzle, till then,
suspended one nozzle with FIP No.02 of the petitioner, in
exercise of his power under clause 5.1.2(a) of Marketing
Discipline Guidelines (for short "2012 Guidelines").
4. Learned counsel Sri.Rajashekhar appearing for the
petitioner contends that clause 5.1.2 of the guidelines was
challenged before the various High Courts and the Delhi High
Court by its judgment dated 18.03.2020 struck down 5.1.2(a)
of 2012 Guidelines. It is his submission that, as on date of
issuance of Annexure-A dated 14.11.2020, clause 5.1.2 (a)
was not available to the respondents.
5. Nextly, learned counsel would contend that the
respondents could not have issued Annexure-A since short
delivery was within the permissible limit as per 2012
Guidelines. It is submitted that there was approximately
shortage of 15 ml in 5 litres and that 0.30 ml in a litre is
permissible limit. Therefore there was no occasion for the
respondents to take action against the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri.Dhananjay Joshi
submits that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited preferred
writ appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge
of the Delhi High Court in LPA No.24/2021 and the Division
Bench by its order dated 10.01.2022 set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the provision
was available for taking action under clause 5.1.2(a) of the
Guidelines 2012. It is also his submission that the petitioner
is not penalized under Annexure-A and he is only called upon
to get one nozzle of FIP No.02 to recalibrated and re-stamped.
Further, it is submitted that by virtue of Annexure-A,
business of the petitioner is not affected and the petitioner is
running his business. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the
writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the
petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ
petition. Firstly for the reason that clause 5.1.2 (a) of the
2012 Guidelines was challenged before the Delhi High Court
and the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by order
dated 18.03.2020 struck down clause 5.1.2 (a). The said
order was taken up in LPA No.24/2021 and the Division
Bench of Delhi High Court, by its judgment dated 10.01.2022
set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. When
once the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside, the
provision continues to remain and therefore, the contention of
the petitioner that as on the date of issuance of Annexure-A
dated 14.11.2020, clause 5.1.2(a) was not available cannot be
accepted.
8. The contention that 0.30 ml in a litre is permissible
limit and as such, the respondents could not have issued
Annexure-A cannot be accepted. Clause 5.1.2 of 2012
Guidelines empowers the respondents to direct the dealer to
recalibrate and re-stamp the nozzle but it would not indicate
permissible limit. The petitioner has not placed on record as
to what is the permissible limit of shortage or discrepancy.
Admittedly, there was short supply of 0.3 ml per litre.
Moreover, the petitioner is not affected by Annexure-A dated
14.11.2020 since only one dispensing nozzle of the unit
bearing FIP No.02 was directed to be recalibrated and re-
stamped and all other nozzles of the petitioner's unit are
functioning and the petitioner is carrying on his business.
Even now it is open for the petitioner to get recalibrate and
re-stamping and resume dispensing from the said nozzle of
the unit. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief sought for.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mpk/-*
CT:bms
