Compliance with the conditions precedent for making an order under Clause 11 of the Control Order 1980 is essential for sustaining a licence cancellation.

      1. Shri A.S. Kutambale, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Umes Gajankush, learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents -State.

They are heard.

This intra-Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 7-9-2011, passed in W.P. No. 8245 of 2009, whereby learned Writ Court affirmed the orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authority by which dealership licence had been cancelled.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant during the relevant time was having a licence to run the petrol pump issued under the provisions of M.P. Motor Spirit and High Spirit Diesel Oil (License and Control) Order, 1980 (for short "Control Order, 1980") and was accordingly running a petrol pump. A sample was taken from his petrol pump on 13-6-1995 which was received by the Laboratory on 17-6-1995 and as per the laboratory report dated 27-6-1995, the said sample failed to meet the requirement of final boiling point in the distillation test, therefore, the appellant was issued the show cause notice dated 21-8-1995 for cancellation of the licence and forfeiture of the security amount The appellant submitted the reply dated 7-10-1995, thereafter, the Collector had passed the order dated 23-6-2003 cancelling the licence and forfeiting the security amount. The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner as well as the revision preferred before the State were dismissed by order dated 24-9-2003 and 21-7-2009 respectively.

3. The learned writ Court considering the fact that the report of Distillation Test by the laboratory clearly shows that the sample taken from the appellant's petrol pump failed to meet the requirement of final boiling point in distillation test. The test was found to be negative. The Collector has passed a detailed reasoned speaking order, cancelling the licence of the appellant and forfeiting the security amount under Clauses 11 and 15 of the Control Order, 1980. It was held that the authority has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in passing the aforesaid order and held that no interference is required in respect of the ground that procedure has not been followed.

4. It is further submitted that as per record, the sample taken by the appellant was sent to the laboratory where the test was performed, thereafter, the appellant was given a show cause notice to which he had submitted the reply and he was also afforded opportunity of hearing before the Collector.

5. In respect of non-compliance of the requirement of Clause 11 of the Control Order 1980, the writ Court passed the following order:--

"(9) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the ground relating to non-compliance of the requirement of Clause 11 of this Control Order 1980 as amended by Notification dated 15th April, 1982 in respect of obtaining the opinion of the oil company with whom the agreement has been made by the licensee, but no such specific ground was raised by the petitioner before the original appellate or revisional authority nor such a specific ground has been raised in this Writ Petition. Therefore, the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. Such a question of fact raised by the petitioner for the first time at the stage of final arguments cannot be gone into. Even otherwise the reply filed by the respondents indicates that a report was obtained from the oil company and thereafter the impugned order was passed. For the aforesaid reason, the judgment of this Court in the matter of M/s. Habib Nathu Owners of Diesel Pump v. State of M.P. and others, reported in AIR 1988 M. P. 283 relied upon by the counsel for petitioner does not help him. On perusal of the record, it is also noticed that no mandatory provision has been violated by the respondents.

(10) The petitioner has also raised a ground that he was not allowed to cross examine the Assistant Food Officer or the laboratory Assistant, but a perusal of the order passed by the