Slnghal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has raised only two objections before me, namely (i) no proper notice was given to the petitioner in respect of violation of Motor Sprit and High Speed Diesal (Prevention of Mal Practices In Supply & Distribution) Order, 1990 and (ii) the punishment under Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licensing & Control) Order, 1990 cannot be awarded as the said order was published on 8. 8. 91.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that an inspection was made of the petrol pump of the petitioner on January 22, 1991. A notice was issued to the petitioner that 32 litres petrol and 137 litres high speed diesel was found short and it was also found that the sample which has been taken on inspection did not conform to the IS1 requirement (IS 27%) and the said petrol was having kerosene oil mixed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the reply submitted to the Distt. Supply Officer it was submitted that the exact provision of the alleged violation of Motor Sprit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Mal Practices in Supply and Distribution) Order, 1990 was not stated and therefore the petitioner was prevented from submitting appropriate reply. So far as this objection is concerned, after the order was passed by the DSO on June 3, 1991 in which it is mentioned that the petrol was sent to Mathura Refinery for testing and in the test report it was found that the petrol was mixed with kerosene oil, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain the same. Condition No. ll (v) of the Licence also mentions that if the licensee contravenes the provisions of the order or any other law relating to essential commodities for the time being in force, action could be taken against him. It may be correct that specific notice under clause ll (v) was not given but the contents of the same were mentioned which is sufficient to enable the petitioner to know about it. This objection has therefore no force. It may be-observed that the aforesaid Order of 1990 is applicable to all the dealers and so as the conditions imposed on the petitioners. THErefore, if any person adopts any mal practices the action could be taken against him. THE action of the respondents in therefore upheld. It has been also submitted that the Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licensing & Control) Order, 1990 was published on 8. 8. 1991 and an order to be made applicable must be published and unless it is published, the same cannot being civil or criminal liability on a person, and such a punishment is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The offence in the present case was committed on January 22, 1991 and the aforesaid Order of 1990 being published on 8. 8. 91 cannot be given retrospective effect in respect of any violation. If the violation of any other provisions of law is there, the respondents may take action against the petitioner. . It is submitted that the action is going on for prosecution of the petitioner. The prayer that the action which has been taken against the petitioner in this regard cannot be taken as the order itself was published on 8. 8. 91 is accepted and the petitioner is entitled to relief to that extent. The order of the revisional authority dated May 21, 1992 in so far as it mentions that the provisions of Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licensing & Control) Order, 1990 is applicable is not in accordance with law. The Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licensing & Control) Order 1990 which was published on 8. 8. 91 could not be implemented against the petitioner but the action which has been taken for violation of condition No. 11 (V) of the Central Order would hold the field. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent stated above. '.;