IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Original Side

Present: - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.

IN THE MATTER OF

WPO 370 of 2024

Malati Saha and Ors

Vs.

Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv.,

Mr. DR Mukherjee, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Nag, Adv.

Mr. Subhajit Ghosh, Adv.,

Reserved on : 12.06.2025 Judgment on : 21.08.2025

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. Petitioner No. 1, 3 and 4 are the partners of a farm

under name and style of M/s. Jiban Jyoti ( petitioner No-2) for LPG distributorship business of “Indane”

under Indian Oil Corporation.

2. The brief fact of the case is that Quality Re-assurances

cell (QRC) of respondent No. 1 (IOCL) took a sudden inspection at the godown of petitioner and made an inspection on 14th of July, 2023. During inspection the said team found 06 number of cylinders out of 20 are

in the delivery van enroute to the customers, were found underweight beyond permissible limit. One show cause was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied the show cause the respondent authority after hearing the petitioner vide order dated 14th September 2024 imposed penalty upon the petitioner. The imposition of penalty was upheld by the appellate authority. Being aggrieved by such action of the respondent authority the instant writ petition has been preferred.

3. It is pertinent to mention herein that the said QRC officials on 14.07.2023 at the time of inspection has detected several other irregularities. Show cause was issued upon the petitioner. At the time of passing the speaking order against the show cause vide order dated 14.09.2023, the respondent authority has imposed minor penalties for other irregularities but only in case of observation of more than 25% of filled LPG Cylinder loaded in a delivery vehicle for delivery of customers found underweight beyond permissible limit prescribed in the Legal Metrology (Packages Commodities) Rules, 2011, found to be a major irregularities under Clause 2.1.2 of MDG 2022. The respondent authority has imposed the fine upon the petitioner distributorship for the reason of one major irregularities as first instance under marketing distributing guideline 2002 and petitioners advised to deposit fine amount of Rs.-1,90,566/-

4. Issue Involved- Whether imposition of penalty by the authority for alleged major irregularities by the respondent authority is an arbitrary, or unreasonable action?

5. For better understanding of the issue let me dealt with the core of the disputes.

6. On 14th of July 2023 QRC team inspected the petitioner’s godown. During that inspection they found a vehicle was loaded with re-filled cylinders for distribution to the customers. They checked and weighd the re-filled cylinders, it appears that out of 20 re-filled cylinders, 06 cylinders are under weigh. According to legal metrology (Packages Commodities) Rules 2011, permissible error on net quantity by weigh is 150 Grams (+/- 10 Grams), would permit for error up to 150 to 160 Grams.

7. In the present case QRC team has taken tare weigh (weigh of cylinders without gas) of the cylinders thereafter taken the gross weigh of the cylinders (including gas); after subtracting to weighs actual weigh of the filled LPG would be counted.

8. The inspecting team has recorded the variance as

0.1,0.2,0.0 etc. (all in KG); consequently when variations shown to be 0.2 KG it was the variations of

200 GMS, thus beyond permissible error.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that to count maximum permissible error, which is permissible quantity of 150 Grams and +/- 10 Grams, can only be properly assessed if the weigh of the cylinders measured by two digit after decimals. It is the case of the petitioner that the QRC team has taken the tera weigh and gross weigh of the refilling cylinders and variance were recorded only after one digit of the decimal. Petitioner submits calculation up to one digit after decimal can cause huge confusion that whether the cylinders are within permissible er