High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt. Jayalakshmi vs M/S. Hindustan Petroleum … on 25 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jayalakshmi vs M/S. Hindustan Petroleum … on 25 November, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25"? DAY or NOVEMBER 2o14o_7-._7,_

BEFORE :

THE I-¥ON'BLE MR.Jl5STICE MOI-IAN sHANTA.n..At;opoAR A

wan PETITIQN N9. 1g2§§1:§.;g1g""g'«§vM~¢Re§-- 1"   

Bwn:

Smt. Jayalakshmi

W/o S.G. Gangadaraiah 

Aged about 36 years A

Proprietor  '  ;

M/s. B.R.S. Service_Centre,._ '

No.1, KIADB Mai'n.Road I '    

Near Rajagopal_Vl'slag_a'ar' _BLis'--St?oo _'   

Peenya 2""      
Bangalore--560-.Q5.8.;j_ ' '   ',   "Petitioner

(By Sri A; MadAni.i?:i:d.§i:ana--lltao, Ad_=.z;)

And :

1. M/s.. rirlinduetain Pe'tro'l'eurn

 Corporation Ltd'*.~,.__ _
 A C?.ov'ernrnent of India
 ' ;E'i*.terpVrise,«_fiavIng its office
A At. Pet.rol_euma._Hfouse
'No-...17, Eamsiaedji Tata Road
lVli_imbaé~:4Oi)'(020
Rep by its Managing Director.

 nT.h_e Cihief Regional Manager (Retail)

 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
 *d~;, Bengaluru Regional Office (Retail)

'(No.7, Old Madras Road
__.Dooravaninagar Post



f\J

Krishnarajapura
Bengaiuru--560 016. ..Respond'e_nts

(By Sri M.S. Narayan, Adv.,)

This Writ Petition is filed under Armies.' 22.6 '&_2V2'7T:of'-;
the Constitution of India praying to',quash,=th'e. iett-er"'d'a_ter£V..
7.6.2010 found at Annexure--G and f'u__rtner issue 'a. wr'.-t'~of'r_
mandamus directing respondent. No.2 to supp'-iyv_ stock 

immediateiy and permit the pegtit-ioner to ‘v.r_a’rry’;on the
business aliow this writ petition wit_h’-costs. ‘

This Writ Petition oo’rn:.i’:1_g’tongfor’*-p’i”e.i’i’m»inary hearing in
‘B’ group this day, the Court made~iih’e foiii-owing :

Petitioner’ My/Ass.-§3.R.S3.Service Centre.
The 15′ rehspovrideint hasap’po’_inted.Wthe petitioner as its dealer
by entering into an._a’g’._reern.ejiit dated 29.10.2004 for carrying

on the tz-usinesus of v.e.ndi’ngVdiesei, petrol, petroieum products

and othteri.,’pro’d.0<:ts.'The inspection of the Petrol Bunk which

the petitioner was conducted by the

respondent~':io..ri'V; 28.4.2010 and found the foliowing

" i;f~._irreg uiari"ties:

” — Hydreometers and thermometers were

not available at the outiet.

/~25

Density record not updated since 25″‘ April
2010 consequently reference density was not

available.

— Previous inspector reports we.re..y_4_:”‘ir]otl.::’ ._

avaiéable/produced.

– Power product was beir’ig.___over4cvh’argedVatithel
time of inspector. Corre~ct”R.SP wasV’Rs._”f3Sf9:1VV
but the dealer ,–was bi~ll–in’g-. “@._56.2′:i.=..even
though specific?.iinstruct’ion’s.fgwere given
regard correct RS.._P..,’:’_ ‘V i ‘ i ‘V V
In addi.ti.o–n” j_certxai’n” aspects of non~
performan__ce_ were also brought to
the notice of the.’d.éal§r.;§:~i.representative viz., Manjunath.

The aforem’entiloVned_iagct-éiiliarel clear from the document at

_.yAnnexL}ire–sr’.F’. However; the petitioner did not make efforts

iyto explain :any”‘–of the irregularities that were observed and

re’cor’c1ed “‘as”_’v_menti’oned above. Consequently, the impugned

-order”as v’per*2\nnexure~’G’ came to be passed on 7″‘ June

penalty of ?”50,000/~– on the petitioner. It is

.:jj_fu”ivtVh’er:made clear in the impugned order that the outlet will

i ‘ilflrerhain suspended till the payment of penalty is paid and

WP

submission of action plan duly endorsed by Executive Sales

Officer, Bangalore Regional office.

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent ”

statement of objections.

2. Sri Madhusudana Rao,l’IVe-arned”counsela.a’ppe:aring; on

behalf of the petitioner though on aspects of
the mater, ultimately conc.l_udedigthgatVf’.th.erlpetigtioher yvill make
payment of the penalty respondent
and conseque.n.tl3y, V’bei:directed to permit
the dealership. The said
submission i-so,pfpos~eid’byl_é$ri__.M.~S.Narayan, learned counsel

appearing on iibvehalffhyof. respondent, who inter alia

,..,.conte,n_d’edi*.that thegipetitioner cannot be shown any mercy,

a,s,_:s-he has sold the petroleum products at the

hfi’g~h:er_ra’tes”_v.t_ha,n”fiprescribed and certain other irregularities

-are the working of the petitioner.

The records prima facie reveal that the petitioner is

V.’–..’::at_ffau|t. She has committed certain irregularities as

M

mentioned in Annexure~’F’. The petitioner’s representative

was present during the joint meeting and after discussions_,

the record of discussions was prepared as per

which contains the irregularities committed bythe’ipeti’tioner,_:if

Annexure–‘F’ is signed by the petit4ion_erfs’ re,presenta:ti_ve:,i

Thus, it is clear that the peti_t’io_VnerV”virtuallyTadmyiyts _:§the

irregularities/illegalities.

4. Be that as it may,’ as Petitioner is
ready to pay If the
payment of petitioner and if
she pjljalnfldulyhendforsed by the Executive
Sales «pf office, the suspension

impose_d._by the,_:’respon’den’ttCompany shall be revoked as

I-itsVs’uggefst:ed.j-in ‘A.nne>tur””=G and as per rules/regulations of the

resppinlden’t:corfipa_ny. Accordingly, the following order is

mad’e._:V

” vsfietivtioner shall pay the penalty of ?SE),E)O0/– imposed

.I_j,on2Vhe’r’ivvithin four weeks from this day. She may also submit

‘w”a’c’tion plan duly endorsed by the Executive Sales Officer of

La

Bangaiore Regional Office. Thereafter, she may approach the

respondent Corporation for lifting the suspension. The-.sa.i.Vd

prayer of the petitioner shall be considered?'”bf-~–::the_j_’_

respondent as per Annexure–G dated» 7.6..2’G*1.Qj».a’nf3

Byelaws/Ruies/Reguiations of the :Compa%iy”aa..as.”ea’riyt,__

possibie, but not later than the V-5u’t.er linnit of fou.r”v.’zg~.g’};Vs fiforn

the date of compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of.