- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46980 WP No. 209 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.209 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S.MANIKANTA HP GAS AGENCY HP GAS DISTRIBUTORS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT R/AT DOOR NO.20-3-523-15A KAVERIKATTE, DARBE PUTTUR, D.K.DISTRICT-574 202 REP. BY ITS PARTNERS SRI.ARUNA KUMARA RAI S/O RAGHUNATHA RAI N & USHA KIRAN .K W/O ARUNA KUMARA RAI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS ROOM NO.19, VIKASA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. M/S.HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46980 WP No. 209 of 2022 A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S.HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED LPG REGIONAL OFFICE 2ND FLOOR, DEO GRATIAS BUILDING CHILIMBI-URVA STORES MANGALORE-575 006 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI.EKALAVYA B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.K.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 AND R.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PENAL ACTION ORDER DATED 27.12.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 27.12.2021 (Annexure-A) issued by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46980 WP No. 209 of 2022 respondent No.2, inter alia, sought for a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the reply dated 07.12.2021 made by the petitioner in furtherance of the show-cause notice produced at Annexure-R in accordance with the Government Order dated 06.09.2006 (Annexure-F) issued by respondent No.1. 2. Heard Sri.Rajashekar S, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Ekalavya B.R., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA for respondent No.1. 3. It is contended by Sri.Rajashekar S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the Regulation 9(e) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation Order') and Government Order dated 06.09.2006 issued by respondent No.1 - State submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no competency to take penal action insofar as Annexure-A is concerned and in this regard, he refers to the judgment - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46980 WP No. 209 of 2022 of this Court in W.P.No.147/2021 disposed of on 17.09.2024 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court to quash the penal charge imposed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. Per-contra, Sri.Ekalavya B.R., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 sought to sustain the penal action taken against the petitioner as per the letter dated 27.12.2021 (Annexure-A). Learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 - State submitted in favour of the Government Order dated 06.09.2006 issued by respondent No.1 - State. 5. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of Annexure-A in which the penal action has been taken against the petitioner, would indicate that a sum of ₹1,35,068.58/- has been imposed as a penalty against the petitioner for over charging based on the inspection dated 08.11.2021. In this regard, whether respondent Nos.2 and 3 have a competency to impose the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46980 WP No. 209 of 2022 penal action has to be considered in the light of the Government Order dated 06.09.2006 and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.147/2021. 6. On careful consideration of the order passed by this Court in the aforementioned aspect, this Court has held that the delivery charges as levied by the dealers has to be considered in the light of Government Order dated 06.09.2006. Accordingly, this Court has held that respondent No.2-Petroleum Corporation has no Authority to levy any penal penalty towards the delivery charges if it is, the same is contrary to the Government Order dated 06.09.2006. 7. In that view of the matter, having taken into consideration the fact that the delivery charges has to be paid only in consonance with the Government Order dated 06.09.2006 (Annexure-F) passed by respondent No.1, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46980 WP No. 209 of 2022 8. It is also to be noted that while imposing the penal charge of ₹1,35,068.58/-, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not assessed the break-up insofar as the violation, if any, under a particular provision is concerned. In that case, taking into consideration the language employed under Regulation 9(e) of the Regulation Order, 2000 referred to above, I am of the view that, the writ petition is required to be allowed by quashing the order dated 27.12.2021 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The Order dated 27.12.2021 bearing No.MLRO/NR/INSP passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed. (iii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the reply dated 07.12.2021 vide Annexure-R strictly in accordance with the order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46980 WP No. 209 of 2022 passed by respondent No.1 dated 06.09.2006 vide Annexure-F. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32