# M/s Shambhu Singh Deena Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 683
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-05-13
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, R.N. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-shambhu-singh-deena-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41113
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri. A.N. Shukla
Sri. Pankaj Rai
S.C.

U.P. High Speed Diesel and Light Diesel
Oil
(Maintenance
of
supplies
and
distribution) Order 1981-read with G.O.
Dated
17.01.2004-cancellation
of
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
dealer's
licence-inspection
made
by
Inspector alone-not accompanied either
by Executive Magistrate or an officer not
below
the
rank
of
D.S.O.-in
utter
violation of the G.O.-held-wholly illegal
and without jurisdiction-Inspector alone
has no power to inspect the premises
and to take sample-cancellation order
not sustainable.

Held: Para 6

Since in this case, the petitioner's premises
was inspected only by the Supply Inspector
he
was
not
accompanied
either
by
Executive Magistrate or by an officer not
below the rank of district supply officer,
therefore, in view of government order
dated 17.1.2004 the inspector alone was
not authorised to carry out the inspection of
the business premises of the petitioner or to
take sample and send it for chemical
examination. Therefore, we are of the
considered
opinion
that
inspection
of
business premises of the petitioner on
28.12.2004 by the supply inspector only
was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction
and supply inspector had no power to
inspect the business premises of the
petitioner or to take sample or to send it for
chemical
examination.
Hence
all
the
proceedings taken against the petitioner in
pursuance of inspection dated 28.12.2004
are without jurisdiction and on the basis of
such an inspection the licence of a petty
diesel dealer of the petitioner could not be
suspended or cancelled by the respondent.

## Text

2 All] M/s Shambhu Singh Deena Singh V. State of U.P. and others
683
villages have been mentioned but for the
village Basain the rate for unirrigated and
residential plots has not been mentioned.

4. The impugned orders have been
passed on the basis of some inspection
report submitted by the Deputy Collector
according to which, in and around the plot
in question there are hotels and other
commercial activities going on. However, it
is not disputed by the respondents that the
plot in question is being used for
agricultural purpose and not for commercial
or residential purpose. Even in the
Khatauni, the land in question has been
shown as being used for agricultural
purpose.

5. Merely because a plot of land may
have potential of being used for commercial
purpose in future, the valuation for the
purpose of determination of stamp duty
cannot be fixed at such rate which may be
for commercial or residential purpose.
Stamp duty is charged on the value of the
transaction and not on the valuation which it
may acquire in future because of the land
surrounding it in commercial use. In the
present case, it has not been found that the
plot of land is being used for any other
purpose than agriculture purpose and the
stamp duty has been paid on the valuation
as has been fixed by the Collector at the
time when the transaction had taken place.
As such, the same cannot be said to be
unjustified nor can the stamp duty be levied
on the basis of subsequent notification
whereby the valuation for the purpose of
payment of stamp duty has been increased.

6. Accordingly, the orders passed by
the authorities below imposing additional
stamp duty cannot be sustained and are
thus liable to be quashed.

7. This writ petition thus stands
allowed. The order dated 31.1.2003 passed
by the Additional Collector, City Stamp,
Agra, respondent no. 2 and the order dated
20.10.2003 passed by the respondent no. 1,
the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra are
quashed. It is directed that the amount
deposited by the petitioner under the orders
passed by the appellate court shall be
refunded to the petitioner within three
months from the date of filing of a certified
copy of this order before the respondent no.
2, the Additional Collector, City Stamp,
Agra. In case if the said amount is not
refunded to the petitioner within the
aforesaid period, the petitioner shall be
entitled to 10% interest from the date of
deposit till the date of actual payment.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition 66608 of 2005

M/s Shambhu Singh Deena Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Sunil Kumar
Sri. Amarjit Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. A.N. Shukla
Sri. Pankaj Rai
S.C.

U.P. High Speed Diesel and Light Diesel
Oil
(Maintenance
of
supplies
and
distribution) Order 1981-read with G.O.
Dated
17.01.2004-cancellation
of
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
dealer's
licence-inspection
made
by
Inspector alone-not accompanied either
by Executive Magistrate or an officer not
below
the
rank
of
D.S.O.-in
utter
violation of the G.O.-held-wholly illegal
and without jurisdiction-Inspector alone
has no power to inspect the premises
and to take sample-cancellation order
not sustainable.

Held: Para 6

Since in this case, the petitioner's premises
was inspected only by the Supply Inspector
he
was
not
accompanied
either
by
Executive Magistrate or by an officer not
below the rank of district supply officer,
therefore, in view of government order
dated 17.1.2004 the inspector alone was
not authorised to carry out the inspection of
the business premises of the petitioner or to
take sample and send it for chemical
examination. Therefore, we are of the
considered
opinion
that
inspection
of
business premises of the petitioner on
28.12.2004 by the supply inspector only
was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction
and supply inspector had no power to
inspect the business premises of the
petitioner or to take sample or to send it for
chemical
examination.
Hence
all
the
proceedings taken against the petitioner in
pursuance of inspection dated 28.12.2004
are without jurisdiction and on the basis of
such an inspection the licence of a petty
diesel dealer of the petitioner could not be
suspended or cancelled by the respondent.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.)

1. The petitioner was granted licence
in the year 1984 in Form 'C' of the U.P.
High Speed Diesel and Light Diesel Oil
(Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution)
Order, 1981 (in brief Order, 1981). In
paragraph 3 of the writ petition it has been
mentioned that the licence of the petitioner
was renewed from time to time and was
valid till 31st March 2007. An inspection of
the business premises of the petitioner was
made
by
the
Supply
Inspector
on
28.12.2004. Sample was taken from the
business premises of the petitioner and sent
for chemical examination on the same day.
After receipt of the report from the chemical
analyst, who reported that high speed diesel
sample fails to meet the B.I.S. specification,
a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner on 6.8.2005, the licence of the
petitioner was suspended and one week's
time was allowed to submit reply to the
show cause notice. According to the
petitioner along with show cause notice,
chemical analyst's report was not supplied
to the petitioner. The petitioner approached
District Supply Officer Bulandshahar for
supplying a copy of the report, which was
received by the petitioner on 11.7.2005. The
petitioner prayed before District Supply
Officer that sample be again sent for retesting as inspection was not carried by an
officer, competent to carry out the
inspection. It is not disputed by the
petitioner that his business premises is lying
closed with effect from 6.8.2005 and since
then the petitioner's licence has been
suspended.

2. We have heard Sri Amarjit Singh
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
A.N. Shukla learned standing counsel
appearing for the respondents.

3. Shri Amarjit Singh learned counsel
for the petitioner has urged that the business
premises of the petitioner was inspected by
the supply inspector on 28.12.2004 and he
took sample and sent it for testing to the
chemical analyst. According to the learned
counsel the supply inspector has no power
or authority to inspect the business premises
of the petitioner or to take sample and send
it for chemical examination. It was only the
District Supply Officer and other officers
mentioned in clause IV (A) of the Motor
2 All] M/s Shambhu Singh Deena Singh V. State of U.P. and others
685
Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of
Supply and Distribution and Prevention of
Malpractices) Order 1998 (in brief Order
1998), who were authorised to inspect the
business
premises
of
the
petitioner.
According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner,
the
entire
proceeding
of
inspection and taking sample and sending it
for testing to the chemical analyst was
without jurisdiction.

4. On the other hand, learned standing
counsel has vehemently urged that since a
licence was granted to the petitioner under
Order 1981, it has been renewed from time
to time, therefore, the authorities mentioned
in clause 18 of the Order, 1981 would be
entitled to carry out inspection and take
sample and send it for chemical examination.
He further urged that under Order 1981 the
definition specifies that a dealer would not
include an oil company and any other person
who is engaged in business of purchase, sale
or storage of high speed diesel would be a
dealer. Under Order 1998 the definition of
dealer is different. Under Order, 1998 a
person appointed by an oil company to
purchase, receive, store and sell motor spirit
and high speed diesel would be a dealer.
According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner under Order 1981 oil company
was not a dealer but under Order 1998, a
person appointed by the oil company is a
dealer. He has urged that since the petitioner
was appointed as petty diesel dealer under
license
granted
by
the
District
Magistrate/Collector, he would not be a
dealer and the provisions of Order 1998
would not apply to it.

5. By clause 8 of the Order 1998 the
Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel
(Prevention of Malpractices in Supply and
Distribution) Order, 1990 (In brief Order
1990) was repealed. It is not disputed by the
learned standing counsel that Order 1990 has
been repealed by order 1998 and the oil
company did not have high speed diesel oil
retail dealers (petty diesel dealer), therefore,
the State Government framed a policy for
appointment of petty dealers so that of high
speed diesel oil could be made available in
rural areas of the State where the oil
companies had not yet appointed any dealer
or has opened a retail diesel outlet. Looking
to the problem faced by the villagers, petty
diesel dealer licenses were issued by the
State Government under its policy to benefit
the farmers of the villages because the retail
outlet appointed by the oil companies were at
far of places. The government order was
issued on 25.10.1987, to all district
magistrates of the State that under Order
1981 for appointment of petty diesel dealer
by the district magistrates and under this
policy of the Government petty diesel dealers
were appointed and continued. Almost
similar government order was issued by the
State Government on 2nd August 2000. By
another Govt. order dated 3.2.2001 the State
Government circulated a format for grant of
petty diesel dealer licence/renewal of the
licence on certain conditions. The format
also mentioned that licence/renewal had to
be made under Order 1981. Another Govt.
order no.129/29-7-2003-1 PP/2000 dated
17.1.2004 was issued by the State Govt. to
all the district magistrates that since the
guidelines issued by the Central Government
known as Marketing Discipline Guide Lines
2001 had been issued, therefore, in super
session of the earlier Government Order
dated 25.4.1997, the State Government has
taken a decision that all pumps be inspected
by a team which consists of an Executive
Magistrate or an officer not below the rank of
District Supply Officer and other member
shall also not be below the rank of inspector.
Officers of the oil company or District Coordinator or officer of the oil company would
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
also be made party of the team. The officers
of oil company would be entitled to carry out
inspection also of authorised petrol/diesel
pumps for carrying out the inspection. It is
necessary to extract the relevant part of the
government order as under :
"la[;k&129/29-7-2003-1-ih0ih0@2000
izs"kd]

vfuy dqekj xqIrk]

lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

leLr ftykf/kdkjh]

mRrj izns'kA
[kk| rFkk jln vuqHkkx&7

y[kuÅ+% fnukad 17 tuojh] 2004
fo"k;% isVaksy ,oa Mhty iEiksa ds fujh{k.k@Nkis dh dk;Zokgh
,oa uewus ds ijh{k.kA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k&1459/29-7-9773-ih0ih0@91] fnukad 25 vizSy] 1997 dk d`i;k lanHkZ
xzg.k djsa] ftlesa isVaksy@Mhty iEiksa ds fujh{k.k@Nkis dh dk;Zokgh
,oa uewus ds ijh{k.k gsrq foLr`r fn'kk&funsZ'k fuxZr fd;s x;s FksA

2.
bl laca/k eas eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd
isVaksfy;e ,oa izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk tkjh
fofHkUu dUVaksy vkMZj ,oa Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr ekdsZfVax
fMlhIyhu xkbZM ykbUl] 2001(Marketing Discipline
Guide Lines, 2001) ds ykxw gks tkus ds QyLo:i mDr
'kklukns'k fnukad 25-4-97 dks vfrdzfer djrs gq, 'kklu }kjk
lE;d fopkjksijkUr fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;s x;s gSa] ftudk dMkbZ
ls vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;&
1.
iEiksa dk fujh{k.k ,d Vhe }kjk fd;k tkuk pkfg, ftldk
iz/kku ,d (Executive Magistrate) vFkok ftyk iwfrZ
vf/kdkjh ls fuEu Js.kh dk vf/kdkjh u gks vkSj lnL; baLisDVj
Js.kh ds uhps ds u gksA mDr Vhe esa rsy m|ksx ds ftyk
leUo;d ;k rsy dEifu;ksa ds vf/kdkjh Hkh 'kkfey jgsaA vk;y
dEiuh ds vf/kdkjh dsoy vf/kd`r isVaksy@Mhty iEi ds Mhyj
dh tkap esa gh lnL; gksaxsA
......
6. From the Government order, it is
clear that petty diesel dealer's premises could
be inspected either by the Executive
Magistrate or by an officer not below the
rank of District Supply Officer and an
inspector would be member of the team
along with District Coordinator of oil
corporation.
Since
in
this
case,
the
petitioner's premises was inspected only by
the
Supply
Inspector
he
was
not
accompanied either by Executive Magistrate
or by an officer not below the rank of district
supply officer, therefore, in view of
government order dated 17.1.2004 the
inspector alone was not authorised to carry
out the inspection of the business premises of
the petitioner or to take sample and send it
for chemical examination. Therefore, we are
of the considered opinion that inspection of
business premises of the petitioner on
28.12.2004 by the supply inspector only was
wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and
supply inspector had no power to inspect the
business premises of the petitioner or to take
sample or to send it for chemical
examination. Hence all the proceedings taken
against the petitioner in pursuance of
inspection dated 28.12.2004 are without
jurisdiction and on the basis of such an
inspection the licence of a petty diesel dealer
of the petitioner could not be suspended or
cancelled by the respondent.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned suspension order dated 6.8.2005
(Annexure-3 to the writ petition) as well as
cancellation
order
dated
3.10.2005
(Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit)
passed by the district supply officer
cancelling the petty diesel dealer license of
the petitioner is quashed. A writ of
mandamus is issued to respondents to renew
the license of the petitioner within three
weeks from the date a certified copy of this
order is produced before respondent no.2.
Respondent no.3 is directed to resume supply
of the petitioner forthwith. Petition Allowed.
---------