M. Katju, J. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 14.10.2002 Annexure-1 to the petition and has claimed refund of the fine of Rs. 20,000. The petitioner was a retail outlet dealer of petroleum and H.S.D. appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation by letter dated 21.9.2002 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He was asked to show cause relating to certain alleged major serious malpractice committed by him, which is alleged to be the third instance in a short span of two years. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.9.2002 as stated in paragraph 6 of the petition vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is alleged that on 9.9.2002, the respondent No. 3 had come to the petitioner's Petrol Pump and he took three samples each from the first and second tanks. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition that while taking sample of the first tank the respondent No. 3 noted the correct density and, therefore, the petitioner signed the inspection note, however, while taking the sample from the second tank the respondent No. 3 did not note down the correct density and hence the petitioner did not sign it. True copies of the Inspection Notes are Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition.
(3.) IN paragraph 6 of the petition it is alleged that the correctness of the test report of the sample taken from the second tank was denied by the petitioner. The petitioner wanted to sent the sample retained by him to the Government Laboratory approved by the Central Government, for which he was ready to deposit the requisite fee. It is alleged that unless the Government Laboratory examines the test the respondents cannot rely on their own test reports. The petitioner has alleged that under the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2001, in the event of request by the dealer the same may be considered on merits by the Regional General Manager and the sample of H.S.D. should be retested. It is alleged that in the past reliance on the tests of the Kanpur Laboratory of the Indian Oil Corporation were found to be incorrect. The relevant guidelines in this connection are Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that various irregularities, e.g., the taking of samples by the respondent No. 3 on 9.9.2002 was illegal since respondent No. 3 did not note the correct density of the H.S.D. It is also alleged that the tests of the Kanpur Laboratory of the Corporation have been found to be incorrect in the past and cannot be relied upon it. The respondents have illegally not sent the sample retained by the petitioner for testing to the Government Laboratory. It is further alleged that the respondents have acted illegally in directing the H.S.D., lying in the second tank to be sent to the Mathura Refinery vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 14.10.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 stopping the sale and supply of all petroleum products for thirty days w.e.f. 21.9.2002 to 20.10.2002 and imposing a fine of Rs. 20,000.;