M/S. Tribhuvan Tranding Co. … vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 11 December, 2009

                                  1

M/S TRIBHUVAN TRADING CO. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
& ORS.
(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11427/09)

Dated:- 11.12.09.


            HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA


Mr. Nitin Trivedi, for the petitioner.


1.    This writ petition is directed against notice dated 3.3.09

whereby the petitioner has been directed to show cause as to

why the barrel point license for sale and purchase of high speed

diesel issued in its favour may not be cancelled for irregularities

committed by it.

2.     A barrel point license was issued to the petitioner by the

District Supply Officer , Nagaur under the Rajasthan Petroleum

Products (Licensing & Control ) Order, 1990 ( in short "Order,

1990") on 6.1.99 which was valid upto 31.3.09 . Thereafter, vide

license dated 27.6.02, the petitioner was authorised for the

import and storage of 4,000 litres of petroleum in the premises ,

descriptions whereof was given in the license issued, which was

renewed upto 31.12.07.

3.    The petitioner has established his barrel point in khasra no.

135, village Sanward, Tehsil Ladnu, district Nagur. Adjacent to

the said khasra, in khasra no. 137 M/s. Essar Oil Limited, Jaipur

was given "No objection certificate" by the District Magistrate,
                                   2

Nagaur to establish its petrol pump. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner preferred a writ petition ( No. 2155/06) which was

dismissed by this court vide order dated 9.4.08.

4.    Now the petitioner has been served with a notice dated

3.3.09 to show cause as to why the license issued in its favour

may     not     be   suspended/cancelled        for   the   following

irregularities/illegalities committed by it:-

(i)the barrel point of the petitioner is situated within 15 kms.
   from the petrol pump operated by M/s Bherunath Filling
   Station;
(ii) in violation of the Rules , the petitioner has established an
   underground tank to carry on its business at the barrel point
   established under the license issued.

5.    The petitioner has already filed      a reply to the notice .

Admittedly, no order cancelling/suspending the petitioner license

has been passed by the respondent authority. It is stated in the

petition that the respondent no. 3 called the proprietor of the

petitioner firm and verbally told that his firm's license is liable to

be cancelled.

6.    It is submitted by the learned counsel that the condition

prohibiting the issuance of the license to carry on business as

barrel point dealer within the radius of 10 kms. of any regular

diesel outlet of any oil company, incorporated in sub-clause (5)

of clause 3 of the Order, 1990 cannot be applied to be barrel

point which are being operated prior to the establishment of the

pump. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon a
                                     3

decision of this court dated 25.5.05 rendered in S.B.Civil Writ

Petition No. 3849/2000 "Sushil Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.".

7.       On being pointed out by the court that apart from the

alleged violation of sub-clause (5) of clause 3 , the allegations

against the petitioner includes the allegation that in violation of

the Rules, it has established an underground tank at the place

of the business, the learned counsel has not been able to show

that no such irregularity has been committed by the petitioner or

the establishment of such underground tank is not in violation of

the relevant Rules.

8.       Be that as it may, the petitioner has already filed a reply to

the notice and there is no reason to believe that the explanation

submitted by the petitioner shall not be considered by the

competent authority. There is no reason to presume that the

decision of this court relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner shall be ignored by the authority concerned while

passing an appropriate order in the matter. Further, on the facts

and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued by the

respondent authority cannot be said to be without jurisdiction .

9.       In view of the discussion above, in considered opinion of

this court, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner against

the show cause notice is pre mature and does not warrant any

interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary
                                   4

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10.   In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.



                                            (SANGEET LODHA),J.