Dismissed

M/s. Sri Srinivasa Filling Station, Indian Oil Dealers, v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Telangana HC1 Mar 2013WP/32390/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld an impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000 on a filling station proprietor for alleged violations of Marketing Guidelines found on inspection. The Court held reasons were sound and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Order imposing penalty of Rs.50,000 was upheld; Writ Petition and interim relief dismissed as infructuous.

M/s. Sri Srinivasa Filling Station, Indian Oil… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32390 of 2011

¶3

Date:01.03.2013

¶4

Between: M/s Sri Srinivasa Filling Station, Nandigama, Reptd., by its Proprietor / Licensee -Nelakuduti Tirupataiah

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And: Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Vijayawada, Reptd by its Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager.

¶7

.....Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch.Ravindra Babu Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee

¶9

Standing Counsel for IOCL

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

Order, dated 30.11.2011, of the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the respondent-Corporation, whereunder a penalty of Rs.50,000/- was imposed treating the act of the petitioner as first offence, is questioned in this Writ Petition. I have heard Sri Ch.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

¶12

Based on inspection of the retail outlet run by the petitioner on 22.06.2011, a show cause notice was

¶13

issued to the petitioner, wherein it was alleged that abnormal testing quantity was observed for MS without permission from Field Officer/Divisional Office; that short delivery of 30 ml was observed in HSD L & T Z line Dispensing Unit (DU) due to which, sales were suspended from DU; that IT retention samples of HSD tank-2 in respect of the previous load were not available; and that sealing diagram of DU was not available at the retail outlet. The petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 22.07.2011. Having considered the said explanation, the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager has passed the impugned order.

¶14

After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the opinion that the reasons, upon which the competent authority of the respondent-Corporation has concluded that the petitioner has violated the Marketing Guidelines, 2005, are very sound and supported by evidence. Nothing is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for this Court to substitute the findings of fact rendered by the competent authority. This apart, the respondent was considerate enough in imposing a lesser penalty of Rs.50,000/instead of levying more serious penalty such as cancellation of dealership.

¶15

For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.40244 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶17

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶18

01^st March, 2013

¶19

M/s. Sri Srinivasa Filling Station, Indian Oil Dealers, v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Srinivasa Filling Station, Indian Oil Dealers, v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. J. Indira, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep. by its

Bejagam Swarajyam, W/o. Late Ramulu Vs The Government of India

Mohammed Asif Khan, , Asif Khan, S/o. Habeeb Khan Vs The Regional Passport Officer

S.Rahaman, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Guguloth Chinna Venkulu Vs The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition)

M/s. Shoba Oil Mill and Modern Rice Mill Vs The District Collector (Civil Supplies)