The court established that the petitioners' association could not seek the same relief as individual members whose petitions had been previously dismissed. Additionally, the court upheld the validity of the provisions of the Control Order and emphasized the petitioners' obligation to comply with its requirements.

In both these writ petitions, the parties are the same. W.P.No.13336 of 2000 is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to provide infrastructure facilities to the members of the petitioner's association at their respective dealership petrol bunk to enable them to inspect and ensure the quality and quantity of the product delivered at their petrol bunk through tanker lorries as per delivery document of the Oil Companies and that the quality of the product conforms to the requirement in Schedule-1 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractice) Order 1998; and to direct the respondents 2 to 5 Oil Companies, to disclose in their delivery documents the analytical report disclosing the specifications of the petrol/diesel sent through lorry tankers.

2. W.P.No.13337 of 2000 is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent and to quash Clause 3(iii)(b) and Clause 5(1) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of malpractice) Order 1998, in so far as, it requires the members of the petitioner's Association to ensure that the quality of the product conform to the requirement of Schedule-1 and empowering officers authorised to take sample from "vehicles" and "receptacles" respectively.

3. The contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions are as follows:

(i) Petitioner association is the Tamil Nadu Petroleum Products Dealers. Its members are engaged in the distribution of petrol and diesel to the public. They are equally interested to supply quality products as the Central Government, Oil Refineries and Oil distributing companies. For that the Government agencies shall acquire the best grade of crude suitable to the various refineries in India. But, the best crude is not received; Oil refineries have shortcomings in the refining technologies; infrastructure facilities and error committed both by human and machines results in substandard products. These substandard products cannot be rectified. But, at the same time, it cannot also be discarded for various reasons. These substandard products are stealthy pressed into distribution system. There cannot be a perpetually unerring system, operated by machines and human beings. Any proclamation to the contrary by Oil refineries that they unfailingly supply petrol to the specification of Schedule-1 of the 1998 Control Order cannot be true. Such claim is nothing but travesty of truth and it is a farce.

(ii) Oil companies are faced with serious, infrastructure, and procedural shortcomings in the supply system adopted by them. The defects are not rectified by the Oil companies in spite of repeated representations from the dealers. There may be few unscrupulous dealers who indulge in adulteration at their end. But it cannot be generalised and the whole lot of dealers cannot be condemned or blamed and held responsible for failure in the product supplied to them. This is a problem affecting the entire nation.

(iii) The Oil companies get supply from Oil refineries. They get it transported by lorries, rail tankers or through pipelines. The product so received are stored in very large tanks in different parts of the country for ultimate distribution to the dealers through lorry/tankers. The members of the petitioner's association are dealers of the petroleum products, by virtue of their Dealership Agreement with respondents 2-5. The Dealership agreement is completely one sided and is in favour of the respondents 2-5. The Oil companies are monopoly business of giant size owned and controlled by the Government of India. The Clauses in the agreement are drafted without negotiations with the dealers; dealers have no say in the agreement; either they have to accept it or leave it. The petitioners have no choice but to sign on dotted lines.

(iv) The first respondent by the power conferred under Secti