VIRENDRASINGH Vs. COLLECTOR INDORE
LAWS(MPH)-1985-2-6
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on February 18,1985

VIRENDRASINGH Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR, INDORE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SURJEET SINGH SALOJA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2007-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH GUPTA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-3-153] [REFERRED TO]
BHANUPRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-7-40] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.D.MULYE, J. - (1.)The petitioner who runs a petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Gee Jay and Company, at Subhash Marg, Indore has filed this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution in the matter of M.P. Motor Spirit and High Diesel Oil (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for quashing the order Annexure-D which was communicated to the petitioner on 25-7-83 by Annexure-E whereby out of the security deposit made by the petitioner a sum of Rs.1000/- was ordered to be forfeited.
(2.)The facts giving rise to this petition, which are no longer in dispute, may be stated, in brief, thus : The petitioner is a partner of the firm M/s Gee Jay and Company which has obtained a license under the said Order for running a petrol pump where only petrol is sold. On 31st May 1983 some Food Inspectors had carried out checking of the petitioner's petrol pump. However, they noted following infirmities : (1) Out of 677 litres of petrol sold, bills were found issued for 106 litres of petrol only; and (2) The duplicate of bills issued did not bear the names and addresses of customers and dates. According to the petitioner he immediately pointed out on the spot to the checking party that with effect from 15-4-83 the M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 stood amended and it was no more obligatory on the dealer to issue receipts or invoice for every sale of motor spirit.
(3.)However, on the basis of the checking report a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20th June 1983 Annexure-B wherein it was stated that the alleged irregularities amounted to violation of condition No.8 of the license issued under the said Order and cl.6 of the Essential Commodities (Price Display and Price Control) Order 1977. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to show cause why his license may not be suspended or cancelled and why the security deposit lying with the Government be not confiscated.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.