AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

( 1 ) BY consent of both the parties, the writ appeal and the writ petition filed by the appellant, M/s. Sri Lalitha Devi Gas Services Ltd. , represented by its proprietor, Vasundara Devi are taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) THE matter was heard by this Court on an earlier occasion and was adjourned with a direction to post the writ petition also along with the writ appeal for a combined hearing. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 1-4-2002 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in WPMP No. 7113/2002 refusing to grant stay of the impugned demand raised by the respondent-Corporation. Now that the writ petition itself is posted along with this writ appeal, there is no need to consider the claim made by the appellant in the writ appeal. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner for the following relief:"for the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ and declare that the action of the 2nd respondent contained in impugned order in reference No. HP Gas/ Vep dated 3-2-2002 purporting to levy damages against the petitioner and threaten the petitioner with termination of dealership of non-payment of damages so levied, is arbitrary without jurisdiction and illegal and direct the respondent to forbear from either recovery of the said amount or take steps for termination of the dealership of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 3-2-2002 and further direct the respondents to release the supply of LGP Distributor gas cylinders/regulators to the petitioners without any reduction of the number of the cylinders/regulators as was supplied upto November, 2001 and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a sole proprietor concern, which was established in the year 1967, and is engaged in the trade of distribution of gas cylinders (LPG) to the consumers. The respondent-Corporation was incorporated some time in the year 1975. In fact, the petitioner was a dealer of M/s. Parel Investment Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. , (PITCL), Bombay. Thereupon, the petitioner was enrolled as distributor of respondent-Corporation, which is a Government of India enterprise, in the year 1984, and the Gas connections of PITCL were transferred to the respondent-Corporation. While so, a show-cause notice dated 9-10-2001 was issued to the petitioner calling for the explanation on the charge that the petitioner has released 3,693 unauthorised connections. The petitioner has submitted an explanation to the show-cause notice on 3-12-2001 stating that the facts and figures contained in the show-cause notice dated 9-10-2001 are not correct and the verification of the authorised connections has to be done with reference to the old records of PITCL Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued second show-cause notice dated 3-12-2001 alleging mat the petitioner has released unauthorised connections and called upon the petitioner to explain about the release of 2654 unauthorised connections. The explanation dated 12-12-2001 was submitted denying the allegations that the petitioner has issued unauthorised connections. It is submitted by the petitioner that calling upon the explanation over a matter relating to 1984 is not proper. However, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 3-2-2002 recording a finding that the petitioner has released 2114 unauthorised connections and as per the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines, 2001, the respondent-Corporation has levied a penalty of Rs. 84,56,000. 00towards unauthorized release of connections at Rs. 4000. 00 per connection. The second respondent has also levied a line of Rs. 35,000. 00 upon the alleged irregularities. Questioning the correctness of the order dated 3-2-2002, the present writ petition has been filed along with very many material papers.

( 4 ) A counter-affidavit was filed b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document