1. The petitioner is a firm having Dealership Agreement - cum - Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence (DPSL), dated 08.08.1998, with the respondent, namely, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The firm filed the writ petition assailing the order of the Territory Manager (Retail), BPCL, suspending the sales and supplies of all petroleum products at petitioner's retail outlet for a period of 30 days and imposing a fine of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order as illegal and void.

2. The firm is running a retail outlet in the name and style of M/s. Premodaya at Buchireddypalem, Nellore District. It obtained Form - B licence from the Joint Collector, Nellore, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (State Control Order, for brevity). On 19.01.2000 the Senior Sales Officer (Retail), Nellore, of the respondent company visited the petitioner's outlet. He took samples of Motor Spirit (MS) (petrol) from the dispensing unit and handed over a copy of the inspection report to an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that no contravention of the State Control Order was noticed. It also contends that it did not contravene any other provisions of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1990 (Control Order, for brevity), which deals with specifications of MS and procedure for such seizure and sampling of products for testing. On 21.03.2001 the Territory Manager addressed a letter to the petitioner informing that as per the Test Report after clinical analysis of the sample the same does not meet the specifications of Research Octane Number (RON). There was no notice, however, proposing any action in terms of clauses 13(a)(vii)(viii) of DPSL. But, on 03.05.2001 the impugned order was passed imposing penalty.

3. The Territory Manager (Retail), Cherlapalli, BPCL, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent opposing the writ petition. It is alleged that sampling and clinical analysis for testing was done in accordance with the Control Order and that the action taken is not arbitrary.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions. The Territory Manager has no authority or power to take action under clause 13(a) of DPSL. As per clause 3 of the Control Order the dealer is required to maintain record of densities as indicated in Schedule I and there is no requirement of recording RON or other specifications. The entire action leading to passing of the impugned order is in contravention of clause 5 of the Control Order. It is specifically pointed out that as per clause 5(2) of the Control Order the Inspecting Officer has to take six samples, but only three samples were taken. Further, as per clause 5(5) of the Control Order the sample is required to be sent to the designated laboratory within ten days form the date of taking sample. But, it was received beyond ten days at the laboratory leading to distortions in the testing. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned order issued without notice calling upon explanation is bad in law. Reliance is placed on S.Chinnasamy v Seed Inspector, Coimbatore1.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for BPCL submits that clause 13(a)(viii) of DPSL has no application to the case and there is a delegation of power to Territory Manager to initiate action under clause 13(a)(vii) of DPSL. Nextly, he contends that when the petitioner is the agent of the marketing company, even if there are lapses in drawing the sample for testing, the same does not invalidate the penalty order. He also contends that the sample taken at petitioner's outlet was sent within ten days to the laboratory, but it was taken up for testing after expiry of ten days, and the same does not vitiate the impugned order.

6. The Control Order is intended to maintain standards in the petroleum products off