HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition C No 4528 of 2008
M/s Sai Service Station
...Petitioners
Versus
1) Indian Oil Corporation
2) Indian Oil Corporation
3) Sri Satish Kumar Singh
...Respondents
! Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mateen Siddiqui
Advocate for the petitioner
^ Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Sudeep Agrawal
Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2
Honble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J
Dated: 20/10/2008
: Judgement
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India)
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(Passed on this 20th day of October , 2008)
Challenge in this petition is to the memo/order
dated 11-7-2008 (Annexure P/1), whereby the sales
officer of the respondent Corporation has suspended the
sale and supply of the retail outlet (hereinafter
referred to as “RO”) of the petitioner’s service
station.
2) The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by
the petitioners are that the petitioner is a
proprietary concern and the petitioner was appointed as
a dealer of the respondent corporation, a public sector
oil company registered under the Indian Companies Act,
1956 (for short “the Corporation”), pursuant to
Petrol/HSD Pump Dealer Agreement (for short, “the
agreement”) dated 25-3-2004 (Annexure P/2). On the
evening of 9-8-2007 (sic) “9-7-2008” some officers of
the Anti Adulteration Cell/respondent Corporation
visited the petrol pump for inspection. Inspection
could not be carried out on account of certain
disturbance created by some of the persons, according
to the petitioner, outsiders. On 11-7-2008 the site was
again visited by the officers and the impugned
letter/order was handed over to the petitioner stating
that during inspection on 9-7-2008 one unknown person
entered into office and started threatening/creating
hindrance in inspection and forcing all IOC official
(the respondent Corporation) to vacate RO premises.
It was further observed that “he with the help of some
other people have taken our marker colour, filled
sample box and all paper. Your support was not as per
expectation.” Thereafter, it was directed “all the
matter is under investigation. As per instruction given
by MPSO/RPDO, your sale and supply is suspended with
immediate effect”, and thereafter proceeded with
inspection and collected various samples from the
petitioner’s petrol pump. The corporation has issued
a show cause notice on 17-7-2008 (Annexure R/2) without
any reference to the order passed on 11-7-2008. Thus,
this petition.
3) Mr. Kanak Tiwari, learned Senior counsel with Mr.
Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that on 10-7-2008 a complaint
(Annexure P/5) was made by the petitioner against
unknown persons an on the same day First Information
Report was lodged against brother of the petitioner and
his staff and the investigation is under progress in
Crime No. 306/2008. Mr. Tiwari would further submit
that the Corporation has made and issued Marketing
Discipline Guidelines, 2005 (for short, “Guidelines”)
with effect from 1-8-2005. No source of law has
either been referred to or quoted in the guidelines.
The allotment of the dealer-ship to the petitioner is
in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.
4) Clause 43 of the Agreement reads as under:
“43. The dealer undertakes faithfully
and promptly to carry out, observe and
perform all directions or rules given or
made from time to time by the
Corporation for the purpose carrying on
of the dealership of the Corporation.
The Dealer shall scrupulously observe
and comply with all laws, rules,
regulations and requisitions of the
Central/State Governments and of all
authorities appointed by them or either
of them including in particular the
Chief Inspector of Explosives,
Government of India, and/or Municipal
and/or any other local authority with
regard to the storage and sale of such
petroleum products.”
Thus, the guidelines have not been made a part of
the agreement.
5) Mr. Tiwari would further contend that the
obligation of the petitioner as contained in the
agreement and the malpractices defined in the Control
Order 2005 and the licensing conditions of the State
Order alone would bind the conduct of the petitioner as
a dealer. The Corporation has not initiated any action
or imposed penalty of suspension of sale and supply of
all products under the provisions of the agreement.
Thus, any action taken under the guidelines is based on
extraneous consideration and fully without jurisdiction.
In the impugned letter/order dated 11-7-2008 (Annexure
P/1), the reason for placing the sale and supply under
suspension was hindrance created by outsiders and lack
of support as per expectation from the proprietor.
Subsequent notice dated 17-7-2008, whereby the
petitioner has been asked to submit his explanation
within a period of seven days was not in continuation of
the impugned memo/order dated 11-7-2008 and it appears
that the suspension of sale and supply of all products,
pursuant to the memo dated 11-7-2008 has nothing to do
with the notice dated 17-7-2008. It was next contended
that under the guidelines, if the dealer refuses to
allow drawal of sample and/or carrying out inspection,
a fine of Rs.50000/- and suspension of the sale and
supply of all products for a maximum period of 45 days
may be imposed on the first time. Thereafter, second
time if such irregularity recurs, fine would be
increased to Rs.1,00,000/- and suspension of sale and
supply of all productions for a maximum period of 90
days. If the irregularity is repeated on third time,
agreement may be terminated. Penalty provision No.17
deals with established cases of discourteous behaviour
by dealers and/or his staff, non producing of complaints
register wherein a fine of Rs.10,000/- first time and
recurrence of the same irregularity second time, a
fine of Rs.25,000/- and recurrence of the same in third
time, a fine of Rs.50,000/- and on fourth occasion,
terminating the sale and supply of all products are
contemplated. The suspension order dated 11-7-2008
makes it clear that the petitioner was punished with
suspension of sale and supply of all products on account
of misbehaviour and lack of expected support from the
dealer, in that event, at the most sale and supply
could have been suspended with fine for a maximum period
of 45 days. The suspension order came into effect on
11-7-2008 and the period of 45 days has expired on 25-8-
2008. Continuation of suspension, thereafter, is
without jurisdiction and without any legal basis.
6) It was contended that under Clause 56 of the
agreement due protection is provided to RO that if
dealer commits breach of any covenants stipulated in the
agreement and failed to remedy such beach within four
days from the date of receipt of a written notice from
the corporation, in that event certain penalties
including termination of the agreement would follow.
There is no provision for suspension of sale and supply
to RO. Mr. Tiwari would further contend that the
dispute referred herein does not arise out of or in
relation to the agreement. Thus, Clause 67 of the
agreement cannot be invoked.
7) Reliance is placed on decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Harbanslal Sahnia and
another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others 1 and
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gujrat Ambuja Cement 2 .
8) Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 17-7-2008
(Annexure R/2), the petitioner has filed reply on 27-7-
2008 (Annexure R/3) and as such, the Corporation has
full jurisdiction to consider reply and pass appropriate
order as permissible under the provisions of the
agreement. It is apparent from para No. 6.3.5 of the
guidelines that two conditions must be satisfied
before penal action is taken against the dealer.
Firstly, show cause notice and secondly minimum time of
seven days to submit explanation. Neither has been
done in the present case before the impugned memo/order
was issued on 11-7-2008 (Annexure P/1). Thus, the
impugned memo/order deserves to be quashed.
9) Per contra, Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned
counsel with Mr. Sandeep Agrawal, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit
that the writ petition would not be maintainable as a
show cause notice was issued on 17-7-2008 and reply
filed thereto is pending consideration before the
Corporation. The petitioner has not challenged the
legality and validity of the show cause notice dated 17-
7-2008, except impugned memo/order dated 11-7-2008.
Further it was contended that Clause 67 of the
dealership agreement provides for reference to the
arbitration in the event of any dispute or difference of
any nature whatsoever or regarding any right,
liability, act, omission on account of any of the
parties arising out of or in relation to the said
agreement. The dispute arose on account of the order
passed by the Corporation and grant of dealership was a
part of the agreement and as such, the dispute ought to
have been referred to the Arbitration. This court may
not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in this
case. Mr. Agrawal, would further contend that the
guidelines for Petrol and diesel retail outlets have
been in existence for long time to facilitate the
marketing of petroleum products. There is a provision
for taking punitive action against the dealer on account
of irregularities committed by the dealer. Clause
6.1.1. provides for adulteration of products. Clause
6.1.1 (a) provides that authorized representatives of
the oil company should carry out density check/marker
check at the RO as per prescribed guidelines. Clause
6.1.1 (b) provides that if density check or marker check
indicates a possible adulteration, sale and supplies of
all the products would be suspended with immediate
effect till such investigations are complete. The
impugned memo/order dated 11-7-2008 was issued
following investigations relating to show cause notice
dated 17-7-2008 and thereafter reply of the petitioner
was filed on 29-7-2008. The same is under consideration
before the Corporation. Thus, at this stage, no
interference is warranted. The instant dispute falls
within the realm of private law as contract was entered
into between the Corporation and a private party.
Thus, it is not a statutory contract and the same is
governed by the Contract Act or Sales of Goods Act. Mr.
Agrawal would next contend that the guidelines have been
issued and approved by the Central Government and the
same have been amended on 15-1-2007 by Annexure B to
the guidelines. Thus, the provisions of the guidelines
are binding on the petitioner (RO) and the Corporation.
10) I have heard learned counsel for the parties,
perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
11) It is evident that pursuant to the agreement dated
25-3-2004 (Annexure P/2) dealership was allotted to
the petitioner (RO). On 9-7-2008 a team of officers of
the Anti Adulteration Cell/respondent Corporation
visited the petrol pump of the petitioner for
inspection. During inspection on account of certain
interferences caused/hindrances created by the
consumers and other persons, the representatives of
the Corporation could not collect the samples and
certain articles were snatched away from the
representatives of the Corporation. The Corporation
issued a memo/order dated 11-7-2008 suspending sale and
supply of all products to the petitioner RO on a
specific ground that excepted cooperation did not come
forward from the dealer and hindrances created by the
persons. It was mentioned that the matter was under
investigation. It is apparent that sale and supply was
not on account of possible adulteration, but on account
of non-co-operation of the dealer and hindrances
created by other persons. The representatives of the
Corporation performed their inspection on 11-7-2008 and
subsequent thereupon issued show cause notice on 11-7-
2008 calling upon the dealer to submit explanation.
Thereafter, explanation/reply was submitted by the
dealer RO which is under consideration.
12) Without going into the merits of the case which is
under consideration by the Corporation as the same may
prejudice case of the parties, I confine my
consideration only to the impugned memo/order dated 11-
7-2008. There is no reference of the memo/order dated
11-7-2008 in the show cause notice dated 17-7-2008.
Thus, it can safely be held that the notice dated 17-7-
2008 was issued, pursuant to the inspection carried out
on 11-7-2008. The impugned memo/order dated 11-7-2008
was on account of hindrances created by other persons
and for want of expected support from the dealer.
13) It is further admitted that agreement provides for
disputes arising out of or in relation to the agreement.
There is no provision in t he agreement for suspension
of sale and supply of all products. However, the
guidelines provide for prevention of irregularities at
Retail Outlets in Chapter -6. Clause 6.1.1 Adulteration
of Product reads as under:
“6.1.1 Adulteration of Product:
Definition:
“Adulteration” means the introduction of any
foreign substance into Motor Spirit/High Speed
Diesel illegally or unauthorizedly with the
result that the product does not conform to the
requirements of Bureau of Indian Standards
specification number IS: 2796 and IS: 1460 for
Motor Spirit and High Speed diesel,
respectively, and amendments thereon, and/or.
Under the 3 – tier sampling scheme, if the
observations on the sample under scrutiny and
the reference sample do not fall within the
reproducibility/permissible limits of the test
method for which the samples are examined,
and/or.
Any other requirement for the purpose to
identify adulteration, issued by the Competent
Authority from time to time.
Penal action to be taken against the erring
Retail Outlet/SKO-LDO dealerships for
adulteration and other
malpractices/irregularities are given in
Appendix-I.
a. Individual Oil Company Officers or their authorized
representatives should carry out density checks and
marker/furfural checks (wherever applicable) at the
Retail Outlets as per the prescribed guidelines.
Moreover, on random basis, at the discretion of the
Inspecting Officer, samples may be drawn for clinical
tests/RON, even if the density variation is within
permissible limits.
b. If density check or Marker/furfural check (wherever
applicable) indicates possible adulteration:
Sale and supply of all products to be suspended
immediately till such time investigations are
completed. Meter and dip readings should be
recorded in the Inspection Report duly signed
by the Dealer or his representative together
with rubber stamp of dealership and each page
of the inspection report shall be initialed by
Inspecting officer and Dealer/Dealer’s
representative. Dispending Pumps and Tanks
should be sealed.
Wherever samples are drawn, either
pursuant to random checks or where adulteration
is suspected, samples should be collected from
each tank at the RO and got tested as per 3-
tier sampling system (explained in Chapter-2).
c. If the sample passes the lab test, sale and supply
of all products, if suspended earlier, will be resumed
to the dealer immediately.
If the sample is certified to be adulterated,
after laboratory test, a show-cause notice
should be served on the dealer and explanation
of the dealer sought within 7 days of the
receipt of the show-cause notice. If the
explanation of dealer is not satisfactory, the
Company should take penal action as given in
Appendix -1.”
14) Appendix-1 to the guidelines provides for penal
action. Serial Numbers 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and
20 deals with suspension of sale an supply which read as
under:
Sl. Nature of MDG 2005
irregularity 1st Penal 3rd
Action
2nd
12 Non maintenance Fine of Fine of Terminatio
of Rs.25,000 Rs.50,000 n
inspection/stock/ & &
sales records and suspension suspension
other records of sale of sale
and supply and supply
of all of all
products products
for 15 for 30
days days
14. Over charging of Fine of Fine of Terminatio
MS/HSD Rs.25000 & Rs.50,000 n
suspension &
of sale suspension
and supply of sale
of all and supply
products of all
for 15 products
days for 30
days
15 Non-observance of Fine of Fine of Terminatio
Govt. regulations Rs.25,000 Rs.50,000 n.
& &
suspension suspension
of sale of sale
and supply and supply
of all of all
products products
for 15 for 30
days. days.
16 Refusal by dealer Fine of Fine of Terminatio
to allow drawal Rs.50000 & Rs.1,00,00 n
of sample and/or suspension 0 &
carrying out of of sale suspension
inspection and supply of sale
of all and supply
products of all
for 45 products
days. for 90
days.
17. Established cases Fine of Fine of Fine of
of discourteous Rs.10,000/-Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/-
behaviour by -
dealers and/or Terminatio
his staff, non- n in case
producing of of 4th
complaints instance.
register
18. Non-provision of Fine of Fine of Fine of
free Air with Rs.10,000 Rs.25,000 Rs.1,00,00
caliberated Air 0 &
Guage, Drinking suspension
water, Radiator of sale
Water, Clean and supply
Toilet of all
Facilities, products
telephone, First for 45
Aid box with days for
current 3rd &
medicines, PUC subsequent
(where instances.
applicable)
19. Established cases Fine of Fine of Fine of
of issuance of Rs.25,000 Rs.50,000 Rs.1,00,00
fake PUC & & 0/- &
Certificates by suspension suspension suspension
dealers having of sale of sale of sale
PUC facility and supply and supply and supply
of all of all of all
products products products
for 15 for 45 for 45
days. days days for
3rd &
subsequent
instances
20. Non Display of Fine of Fine of Fine of
authorized Retail Rs.10,000 Rs.25,000 Rs.50,000/-
selling price of &
MS/HSD suspension
of sale
and supply
of all
products
for 15
days for
3rd &
subsequent
instances"
15) On perusal of the above provisions of the
suspension, it is apparent that this is not a case of
non-maintenance of Inspection/Stock/Sales Records and
other records or over charging of MS/HSD or non-
observance of Government regulations or non-provision
of free Air with caliberated Air Guage or established
cases of issuance of fake PUC certificates by dealers
having PUC facility and non display of authorized retail
selling price of MS/HSD. The present dispute which
arose on 9-7-2008 comes within penalty provisions. 16 an
17 i.e., refusal by dealer to allow drawal of sample
and/or carrying out of inspection and established
cases of discourteous behaviour by dealers and/or his
staff and non-producing of complaints register. In
case of penalty No.16 penal action provided for having
committed the irregularity as prescribed is imposition
of fine of Rs.50,000 and suspension of sale and supply
of all products for 45 days. If the same is repeated
second time, fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and suspension of
sale and supply of all the products for 90, days. If
the irregularity is repeated on third time, agreement
may lead to termination. The Corporation has not
imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/-, but has suspended the
sale an supply of all the products. Thus, even
otherwise, since the period of 45 days has come to an
end, the suspension may not continue but the inspection
on the ground of adulteration or investigation on other
ground is not the reason for passing the order dated 11-
7-2008 as is clear from perusal of the memo/order dated
11-7-2008.
16) With regard to the maintainability of the writ
petition, admittedly, the petitioner is not granted four
days time to make good the default as prescribed under
the Clause 56 of the agreement. Therefore, the
provision of the agreement was not invoked and as such
the dispute has not arisen out of or in relation to the
agreement, which may be referred to the Arbitrator.
This Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in
case of discrimination, arbitrariness and violation
of principles of natural justice, which amounts to
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and look
into the matter and take judicial review of the dispute.
17) Strictly speaking, it cannot be held that the
dispute falls within the realm of private law, as the
Corporation is a public sector undertaking registered
under the Companies Act, 1956 deals with public at
large , it does not come within the realm of public law.
Thus, this Court has full jurisdiction to take judicial
review of any omission or commission of the authorities
of the Corporation.
18) In the matter of Mahabir Auto Stores and others Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation and others3, wherein Their
Lordships of the Supreme Court have settled legal
position with regard to status of Indian Oil Corporation
that the Indian Oil Corporation is an organ or
instrumentality of the State as contemplated under
Article 12 of the Constitution.
19) In the matter of Harbanslal Sahnia and another
(supra), the facts were identical. There was an
agreement between the Indian Oil Corporation and the
dealer, whereby the appellants were appointed as
dealers in Petroleum Products. On 15-12-1999 officers
of the Corporation visited RO of the appellants for
inspection of the dealership. The Corporation issued a
show cause notice thereafter and requiring the
appellants to explain why density record was not
maintained. Secondly, the dealer did not cooperate with
the officers who had come to inspect the retail outlet
and rather used unparliamentary language and displayed
discourteous behaviour. Hon’ble the Supreme Court held
that the cancellation was founded solely on the failure
of the dealer’s sample. Non-cooperation and
discourteous behaviour of the dealer has been held in a
very general way without specifying what was the non-
cooperation and what was the discourtesy shown to the
officers of the Indian Oil Corporation.
20) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter Harbanslal
Sahnia and another (supra), observed as under:
“7. So far as the view taken by the High
Court that the remedy by way of recourse
to arbitration clause was available to
the appellants and therefore the writ
petition filed by the appellants was
liable to be dismissed is concerned,
suffice it to observe that the rule of
exclusion of writ jurisdiction by
availability of an alternative remedy is
a rule of discretion and not one of
compulsion. In an appropriate case, in
spite of availability of the alternative
remedy, the High Court may still exercise
its writ jurisdiction in at least three
contingencies: (i) where the writ
petition seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights; (ii) where there is
failure of principles of natural justice;
or (iii) where the orders or proceedings
are wholly without jurisdiction or the
vires of an Act is challenged (See
Whirlpool Corpn v. Registrar of Trade
Marks 1). The present case attracts
applicability of the first two
contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the
petitioners’ dealership, which is their
bread and butter, came to be terminated
for an irrelevant and non-existent cause.
In such circumstances, we feel that the
appellants should have been allowed
relief by the High Court itself instead
of driving them to the need of initiating
arbitration proceedings.”
21) In the matter of State of H.P. and others (supra),
in respect of power relating to alternative remedy, it
was held that alternative remedy is a rule of self-
imposed limitation, a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion and never a rule of law.
22) Reliance of Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal on the decision
in the matter of Special Director and another Vs. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse and another4 is not relevant as there
is no challenge to the legality of the show cause notice
dated 17-7-2008 and the court is not dealing with the
legality of the show cause notice.
23) The decision in the matter Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta
Vs. Collector, Jabalpur and others 5 relied upon by the
counsel for the respondent Corporation is not relevant
as the High Court exercising its discretionary
jurisdiction declined to entertain the writ petition on
the ground of availability of alternative remedy of
referring the dispute to the Arbitration. In the case
on hand, the dispute did not arise from the provisions
of the agreement.
24) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Empire
Jute Co. Ltd. & others Vs. Jute Corporation of India
Ltd. & another 6 observed as under:
“21. Relying on some of the earlier
decisions of this Court, this Court held:
“It may be true that in a given case when
an action of the party is dehors the
terms and conditions contained in an
agreement as also beyond the scope and
ambit of the domestic forum created
therefore, the writ petition may be held
to be maintainable; but indisputably
therefore such a case has to be made out.
It may also be true, as has been held by
this Court in Amritstar Gas Service and
E. Ventkatakrishna that the arbitrator
may not have the requisite jurisdiction
to direct restoration of distributorship
having regard to the provisions contained
in Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963; but while entertaining a writ
petition eve in such a case, the court
may not lose sight of the fact that if a
serious disputed question of fact is
involved arising out of a contract qua
contract, ordinarily a writ petition
would not be entertained. A writ
petition, however, will be entertained
when it involves a public law character
or involves a question arising out of
public law functions on the part of the
respondent.”
25) In the matter of Agri Gold Exims Ltd Vs. Sri
Lakshmi Knits & Wovens and others7, relied upon by Mr.
Sanjay K. Agrawal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed
as under:
“22. Section 8 of the 1996 Act is
peremptory in nature. In a case where
there exists an arbitration agreement,
the court is under obligation to refer
the parties to arbitration in terms of
the arbitration agreement. (See
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. V.
Pinkcity Midway Petroleums2 and
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd3). No issue,
therefore, would remain to be decided in
a suit. Existence of arbitration
agreement is not disputed. The High
Court, therefore, in our opinion, was
right in referring the dispute between
the parties to arbitration.”
26) The decision of Bharat Sews Sansthan vs. U.P.
Electronics Corporation Limited8, relied upon by Mr.
Agrawal, may not be relevant to the facts of the present
case as no dispute has arisen out of or in relation to
the provisions of the agreement.
27) In the matter of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation and others Vs. M/s. Gayatri Construction
Company and another9, relied upon by Mr. Agrawal, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in case of question
of construction of contract, if a term of contract is
violated, ordinarily the remedy is not the writ petition
under Article 226 if the contract falls in realm of the
private law. The decision is not applicable to the
facts of the present case as the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held (supra) that Indian Oil Corporation is a state
within Article 12 of the Constitution.
28) A common thread running into the above cited
decision is that in case of arbitration agreement, the
writ court should not exercise its jurisdiction when
there is a clear provision for reference of a dispute to
the arbitrator. Secondly, in the contract which falls
within the realm of the private law may not be
entertained by the High Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. The facts of the instant case are
entirely different. The agreement between the dealer
and the Corporation provided for grant of four days time
to make good the irregularity allegedly committed by
the dealer. The corporation has not invoked that remedy
and has taken recourse to the guidelines which provides
for suspension of sale and supply of all products in
case of refusal by dealer to allow drawal of sample
and/or carrying out of inspection and discourteous
behaviour by dealers and/or his staff, non producing of
complaints register.
29) It is well settled principles of law that no order
visiting with civil (evil) consequences can be passed
without affording an opportunity of hearing to the
aggrieved party. In the case on hand, the impugned
memo/order dated 11-7-2008 was passed, admittedly on
account of hindrances created by other persons and short
of expected cooperation of the dealer, without affording
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/dealer.
Subsequent show cause notice dated 17-7-2008 has no
reference to the impugned memo/order dated 11-7-2008.
Serial No. 16 and 17 of the Appendix 1 to the guidelines
provides that in case of irregularity of the nature
involved in the subject matter of the petition entails
imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- and suspension of
sale and supply of all products for a maximum period of
45 days. Thus, suspension of sale and supply of all
products cannot survive after expiry of 45 days. The
suspension order came into effect on 11-7-2008 and the
period of 45 days has expired on 25-8-2008.
30). Without expressing any opinion on the investigation
which is under consideration, pursuant to the show cause
notice dated 17-7-2008, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned memo/order dated 11-7-2008 can
not sustain after completion of 45 days. Thus, the
impugned memo/order dated 11-7-2008 (Annexure P/1) is
quashed. The respondent Corporation is at liberty to
continue with investigation as initiated by issuing show
cause notice dated 17-7-2008 and take appropriate action
or otherwise whatever permissible under the provisions
of the contract agreement or law.
31) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this
petition is allowed. The impugned memo/dated 11-7-2008
(Annexure P/1) is quashed. No order asto costs.
JUDGE