Nearly three years ago, when the District approved a moratorium on the operation of self-service gas-and-go stations the city council also ordered a study to determine how long the moratorium should last. But at a hearing yesterday on whether the temporary ban should be extended, no one knew where the study was, who was supposed to have completed it or the impart of the moratorium. As a consequence,city planners asked that the moratorium be extended "for several months" while the city asks the federal government for $75,000 to conduct the study. "We regret to remind the council that when the present law was passed in 1976, it anticipated a comprehensive impact study which to date remains indone," said Charles Clinton, representing the city administrator for planning and development. "We are advised that a request for funding of the study was submitted for the fiscal year 1978 budget, but was not approved." Clinton, who asked for time to ask the federal government for $75,000, said the city council had "knocked out" funds for the study. When asked who was responsible for conducting the study, Clinton replied, "It was fumbled." Clinton also told the council members that his boss, James O Gibson, assistant city administrator for planning and development, suggested the moratorium be extended for one or two more years. When another city official, Chester Mckenzie of the Department of Licenses, Investigations and Inspections, was asked for certain information that he did not have, Betty Ann Kane (Dat-large) asked if a study was his responsibility. "No," Mckenzie replied. "The mayor (Washington) had the responsibility of conducting a study on the effects of the Act." The law states that after April 18 1977, no retail service station may be converted to a "non-full service facility" or reduce the number of types of repair and other services that are doneuntil March 29, 1979. Last week the city council extended the moratorium for another 90 days. Representatives of the gasoline industry yesterday said they did not think the moratorium should be extended while a study is completed. Committee chairman Jerry A. Moore Jr. asked spokespersons from the greater Washington petroleum committed why they hadn't done a report. Joanne Fort said that her committee would be glad to help the district with a report but she did not want the city to conduct "a report of the report" after it is finished. "It's a little unfair to ask us to continue under this moratorium while we wait for $75,000 from the department of energy, which may or may not be forthcoming," said WilliamMahoney of the petroleum committee. "Speaking frankly,we don't have the money to do a study or the personnel," Moore said. "It seems to me the oil companies might want to get together to make a study."00:1500000259:Copyright (c) , The Washington Post For the second time in three weeks, the legal right of consumer groups to file lawsuits has been attacked in the federal courts. On March 13, District Court Judge John J. Sirica ruled that consumer organizations founded and run by Ralph Nader can't sue on behalf of the general public, partly because they don't have a democratic structure,dues-payingmembers and elected officers. Now the justice department is going beyond Sirica to contend that Consumers Union, the nation's largest independent, nonprofit testing organization, doesn't have standing to sue the federal reserve board in behalf of CU's members, although they hold a secret-ballot election annually to choose one-third of their directors. CU sued the Fed last year after it amended a truth-in-lending regulation to dilute the three-day "cooling off" period in which a person can back out of a commitment to put up his home as security in a non-mortgage credit transaction. The Fed acted "without authority," said CU, which is the publisher of Consumer Reports. While the suit was pending, Judge Sirica handed down his ruling in a case in which two of Nader's organizations sued the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration in connection with the continuing sale of over-the-counter medications with ingredients that have not been shown to be effective. In turn, the Sirica ruling was relied upon by the Justice Department Monday, when it filed a paper with Judge Oliver Gasch in support of a motion to dismiss the suit against the Fed. CU has "neither alleged nor demonstrated" more than did the Nader groups that the interests it sued to protect are "germane to the organization's purpose," Charles R. McConachie,chief of the department's Consumer Affairs Section, a unit of the Antitrust Division, said in the paper. CU will file an answer strongly disputing that contention, Mark Silbergeld, director of CU's Washington office, told a reporter. McConachie went on to contend that CU lacked the legal right to sue because it hadn't suggested "that this litigation is the product of pressure brought to bear by individual mem bers who wish Consumers Unions to advocate and protect their interests. "Moreover," the paper argued, "individual members have not been alleged to exercise any influence or control over this particular litigation." The quoted language is a possible threat to profit-making corporations as well as to non-profit organization such as CU, because the relationship to stockholders in one case and to members in the other is legally similar, Silbergeld said. Neither McConachie nor Antitrust chief John H. Shenefield could be reached for comment