M/S RADHEY SHYAM VINOD KUMAR Vs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RETAIL & APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.07.2007 (Annexure no.-13) passed by Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum, Corporation (opposite party no.3) as also the order dated 29.11.2007 (Annexure no.16) passed by the appellate authority up holding the order passed by the Regional Manager in appeal. The petitioner is dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and is running the business under the terms of agreement entered into between him and Hindustan Petroleum as well as relevant Rules and Orders is issued therefor.

(2.) ON 15.05.2007 one Mr. Indrajeet Yadav, an authorized representative of S.G.S. India Private Ltd. (opposite party no.4) purchased 1/2 liter of H.S.D. (Diesel) through nozzle connected with the tank no.1 through dispensing unit and performed marker test which gave pink color that means it failed in marker test. He prepared a report and took the petitioner's signature over there. After 45 minutes he again came at the retail outlet and purchased 1 liter of H.S.D. From tank no.2 through nozzle connected with the dispensing unit and again performed the same test, prepared the report and took petitioner's signature.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case only 1.5 liter product was taken out of which 1/2 liter was utilized for testing on the spot and only 02 samples of 1/2 of each were taken and no sample was left for the dealer to retain. It is further stated that the samples so taken was neither properly sealed nor was numbered as required by the guidelines. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the actions of the respondents suffers from jurisdiction and procedural error in sampling that being so the orders impugned are liable to be quashed. Through the counter affidavit the respondents admitted the sampling of oil product from the petitioner's outlet by the authorized representative, it is stated that the said T.T. retention sample was not in a sealed condition and only sample was pasted on the wood box which was duly signed by the petitioner's representative and T.T. Driver. It is also admitted that no seal number was mentioned on the sample label therefore it was not tested.