G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the FIR lodged on 14-7-2000 at P.S. Sikanderpur which has been registered as case crime No. 206 of 2000 under S.3/7, E.C. Act against the petitioner be quashed.
(2.) SRI Sudama Singh Member of Legislative Assembly lodged an FIR on 14-7-2000 at P.S. Sikandarpur alleging that he went to the petrol pump of M/s. Deepak Automobiles to get diesel for his vehicle but Bhuneshwar Verma. manager of the pump said that the diesel had exhausted and declined to give the same to him. It is alleged that the first informant informed the concerned police station and some police personnel came and an inspection was done. On switching on the three pumps no diesel came out of the nozzel. However, on measuring the quantity of diesel in the underground tanks, it was found that there were 18 dips of diesel in the eastern tank and 5 dips of diesel in the western tank. In the sales room. 20 litres diesel was found in a white plastic can (balti). It is also mentioned in the FIR that a notice had been pasted on the petrol pump that there was no diesel but the same did not contain signature of any one. The further allegation is that no quantity of reserve diesel had been kept in the said petrol pump as such the rules had been violated. It is mentioned in the FIR that when the three pumps were switched on, no diesel was coming out of the nozzel. This must be due to the reason that quantity of diesel in the underground tank was so small that electrical pumps were not in a position to suck the same for its delivery to motor vehicles. Therefore no liability can be fastened upon the owner of the petrol pump merely on the ground that by dipping of gauge in the underground tanks, it showed presence of some quantity of diesel. Normally the mode of supply of diesel from the tanks is by means of electrical pumps and if there is very small quantity of diesel lying in the bottom of the tanks, the pumps are not in a position to suck the same and no supply will come through nozzel. Therefore, no criminal liability of any kind can be imposed upon the owner or manager of the pumps on the ground that the dip showed some quantity of diesel in the tank.
(3.) THE allegation in the FIR is that the owner of the pump did not keep any reserve quantity of diesel and as such he committed an offence. On March 1, 1977 the State Government had issued Uttar Pradesh Petroleum Products (Maintenance of Supplies) Control Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order). Clauses 2(a) and (c) thereof define 'dealer' and "retail outlet'. Clauses 1 and 3 of the Control Order, which are relevant for controversy in hand are being reproduced below : "1. Short title, extent and commencement - (i) This Order may be called the Uttar Pradesh Petroleum Products (Maintenance of Supplies) Control Order, 1977. (ii) It shall extend to the whole of Uttar Pradesh. (iii) It shall come into force at once and shall remain in force up to March 31, 1977 unless earlier revoked. 3. Requirement to maintain minimum stock of petroleum products - Every Dealer shall at all time maintain at his retail outlet a minimum stock of 1000 (one thousand) litres of high speed diesel oil and 1000 (one thousand) litres of Motor spirit each apart from the dead stock and from out of the minimum stock referred to above, the sales shall be made by him to such person and in such quantity only as is specified in a permit issued in that behalf by the District Magistrate : Provided that the dealer shall replenish the stock so sold to the permit holder so as to keep, as may be, the minimum referred to above. " Clause 3 of the Control Order imposed an obligation upon the dealer to maintain at all time at his retail outlet a minimum stock of 1000 litres of high speed diesel oil and 1000 litres of Motor spirit each, apart from the dead stock. It further enjoined that sales out of the aforesaid minimum stock shall be made by him to such person and in such quantity only as is specified in a permit issued in that behalf by the District Magistrate . Clause (iii) of clause 1 shows that the Control Order was to remain in force only up to March 31, 1977. The writ petition was heard for the first time on 17-8-2000 when the learned Standing counsel made statement that as per his instructions, the life of the Control Order was not extended after 31-3-1977. He was however given three weeks time for filing a detailed affidavit. Thereafter time for filing counter affidavit was given again on 10-10-2000 and 13-11-2000. However till the time when the petition was heard, no counter affidavit had been filed. The Control Order was issued on March 1, 1977 and as mentioned in sub-clause (iii) of clause 1 was to remain in force only up to March 31, 1977 . The learned Standing counsel has not been able to show that life of the Control Order was extended or that any such Control Order was in existence on the date when the incident is alleged to have taken place namely on 14-7-2000. It appears that the Control Order was issued only in the month of March 1977 as general elections were held in that period. In view of the fact that there is no Control Order which may require a dealer to maintain a reserve stock of diesel, even assuming the facts mentioned in the F.I..R to be absolutely correct, they do not constitute any offence. The proceedings of the case registered against the petitioner, therefore, deserve to be quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. All proceedings of case crime No. 206 of 2000 under S.3/7 E.C. Act P.S. Sikandarpur, District Ballia are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.;