- (1.) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Petitioner is dealer of High Speed Diesel Oil. A checking was made and sample was collected at his premises on 9.8.2004 and testing report was submitted on 15.2.2005, i.e., after more than six months, reporting deficiency therein. District Magistrate issued an order of suspension on 10.7.2005 and after receiving reply of the petitioner dated 29.7.2005, petitioner's licence was cancelled by order dated 19.9.2005 by District Supply Officer which was affirmed in appeal by order dated 13.8.2007.
(2.) Sri Asthana, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the Government Order dated 6.6.2000 refers and reiterates the earlier Government Order No. 1459/29.7.1997-731 PP dated 25.4.1997 providing that the sample collected at the dealer's premises should be tested within ten days since delay therein may effect testing results adversely. The Government Order required all the District Magistrates for strict compliance of the said time frame. In the case in hand the sample was collected on 9.8.2004 and was sent to Director, Forensic Laboratory, Agra by District Magistrate, Budaun on 25.8.2004. The testing report was issued on 15.2.2005 showing adulteration in the sample.
(3.) Referring to a similar kind of Government Order, this Court in Rinku Oil Company v. State of U.P. and another,2003 1 FLR 389, observed as under: 8. Further, both the authorities i.e., the District Supply Officer, Aligarh and the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra have mentioned in the impugned orders that the Government Order dated 4.1.1988 was not applicable as same was only in reference to the dealers of the oil company and not in context to petty diesel dealers. It is true that aforementioned Government Order deals with the dealer of the oil company, but the guideline, which has been provided therein, can also be made applicable to petty diesel dealers who are also dealing with the sale of diesel under the Uttar Pradesh High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies) and Distribution Order, 1981. Once in the Government Order it has been mentioned that report should be obtained within the specified time so that quality of material is not effected, then the effect of delay in analysing the sample ought to have been considered. 9. Adulteration is a social crime and the same has to be dealt with firmly. The underlying object of the G.O. dated 4.1.1998 is to deal with adulteration cases on priority basis. It has also been provided therein that in case there is any slagness on the part of officials/employees, suitable action be taken against them. The purpose of the G.O. dated 4.1.1988 has been sought to be defeated in the present case. No plausible reason has been given by the State for not extending the provisions of this Government Order on petty diesel dealers. Adulteration, irrespective of the fact, who has done it whether he is Agent of Oil Company, Dealers of the Oil Company, Block Distributors, Petty Diesel Dealers has to be tested on the same scales. 11. The view which has been taken by the authorities concerned is very narrow and hyper technical view and does not advance cause of justice and in fact, the provisions of the aforementioned Government Order ought to have been applied as far as petty diesel dealers are concerned. The relevant question which was raised and to dealt with and to be adjudicated by the authorities concerned, was as to whether the delay in analysing the sample in any way has affected the quality of the sample or not. This exercise in the present case undisputedly has not been done.;