V.M.SAHAI,J. - (1.) THE petitioner was granted licence in the year 1984 in Form 'C' of the U.P. High Speed Diesel and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 (in brief Order, 1981). In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it has been mentioned that the licence of the petitioner was renewed from time to time and was valid till 31st March 2007. An inspection of the business premises of the petitioner was made by the Supply Inspector on 28.12.2004. Sample was taken from the business premises of the petitioner and sent for chemical examination on the same day. After receipt of the report from the chemical analyst, who reported that high speed diesel sample fails to meet the B.I.S. specification, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 6.8.2005, the licence of the petitioner was suspended and one week's time was allowed to submit reply to the show cause notice. According to the petitioner along with show cause notice, chemical analyst's report was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner approached District Supply Officer Bulandshahar for supplying a copy of the report, which was received by the petitioner on 11.7.2005. The petitioner prayed before District Supply Officer that sample be again sent for retesting as inspection was not carried by an officer, competent to carry out the inspection. It is not disputed by the petitioner that his business premises is lying closed with effect from 6.8.2005 and since then the petitioner's licence has been suspended.
(2.) WE have heard Sri Amarjit Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.N. Shukla learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Shri Amarjit Singh learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the supply inspector on 28.12.2004 and he took sample and sent it for testing to the chemical analyst. According to the learned counsel the supply inspector has no power or authority to inspect the business premises of the petitioner or to take sample and send it for chemical examination. It was only the District Supply Officer and other officers mentioned in clause IV (A) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998 (in brief Order 1998), who were authorised to inspect the business premises of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire proceeding of inspection and taking sample and sending it for testing to the chemical analyst was without jurisdiction.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned standing counsel has vehemently urged that since a licence was granted to the petitioner under Order 1981, it has been renewed from time to time, therefore, the authorities mentioned in clause 18 of the Order, 1981 would be entitled to carry out inspection and take sample and send it for chemical examination. He further urged that under Order 1981 the definition specifies that a dealer would not include an oil company and any other person who is engaged in business of purchase, sale or storage of high speed diesel would be a dealer. Under Order 1998 the definition of dealer is different. Under Order, 1998 a person appointed by an oil company to purchase, receive, store and sell motor spirit and high speed diesel would be a dealer. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner under Order 1981 oil company was not a dealer but under Order 1998, a person appointed by the oil company is a dealer. He has urged that since the petitioner was appointed as petty diesel dealer under license granted by the District Magistrate/Collector, he would not be a dealer and the provisions of Order 1998 would not apply to it.;