JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is taken on record.

2. Counsel for the petitioner waives his right to file a rejoinder affidavit.

3. As jointly agreed by counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal as per the Rules of the Court.

4. Heard Sri Ankit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

5. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of a sealing order which is stated to be undated and in pursuance of which the bio-diesel retail centre of the petitioner has been sealed. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondent to open the seal of the retail centre of the petitioner and not to interfere in its functioning.

6. The facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of retail sale of bio-diesel since the year 2017 and since bio-diesel is not a petroleum product no clearance of any sort is required for its storage and handling. It has been stated that the officials of the District Supply Office, Aligarh are continuously harassing the petitioner and an F.I.R. was maliciously lodged on 31.08.2019 under Section 420 IPC read with Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at P.S. Gonda, District Aligarh and thereafter the respondents have proceeded to illegally seal the bio-diesel pump of the petitioner. It is submitted that no copy of the sealing order has been supplied to the petitioner and the entire proceedings are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and are legally unsustainable.

7. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner reiterating the assertion that bio-diesel is not a petroleum product and no clearance is required for its storage and handling; however, reliance is sought to be placed on the provisions contained under the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 (the MS-HSD Order, 2005) to contend that the search and seizure operations carried out by the respondent authorities at the retail outlet of the petitioner are contrary to the provisions contained under Clause 7 of the aforesaid Order.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents placed reliance upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 to contend that the petitioner was operating the retail outlet without any valid licence or permission for storage and sale of diesel/motor spirit/bio-diesel. The assertion made by the petitioner that no licence is necessary for storage and sale of bio-diesel has been denied. It has been stated that as per the provisions contained under the MS-HSD Order, 2005, as amended in terms of the Amendment Order of the year 2017, Clause 6-A has been inserted and in terms thereof the sale of bio-diesel has also been brought under its purview. Further reliance has been drawn to a Government Order dated 27.10.2016 containing certain guidelines with regard to grant of No Objection for the purposes of sale/purchase and storage of bio-diesel. It has been submitted that the aforementioned Government Order though was issued in the context of grant of approval to a particular applicant but the said Government Order was thereafter circulated by the State Government vide D.O. Letter dated 13.04.2017 to all District Magistrates/District Supply Officers in the State of Uttar Pradesh for taking appropriate action pursuant thereto. Accordingly, it is submitted that the guidelines contained in the Government Order dated 27.10.2016 are applicable with regard to the grant of No Objection/approval for sale/purchase and storage of bio-diesel in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents further submits that the petitioner was running the r