The petitioner is a dealer in products of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the 2nd respondent. An outlet was established by it at Dichpally of Nizamabad District on National Highway No.7. Dispensing unit is said to have been established about 50 years ago. An inspection was conducted on 24.11.2009 at 7 p.m. Based upon the observations of the inspection, a show cause notice dated 08.12.2009 was issued alleging that the HSD dispensing unit was delivering 140 ml. litre short, for every five litres. It is also mentioned that on further examination, the lever of the metering unit was found to have been tampered, by replacing a gear with 39 teeth, in the place of the one with 38 teeth.

The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the seal of the Vending unit was in tact, and that even according to the show cause notice, the respondents have opened the seal, after obtaining the permission of the authorities of the Legal Metrology Department and the Manufacturers. He contends that once the seal is found to be in tact, the dealer cannot be held responsible for any error, or defect as to measurement. He pointed out that the dealer has no control over the dispensing unit, and the Corporation and the Maintenance Agency are in complete control over the units. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Corporation terminated the dealership of the petitioner through proceedings dated 12.08.2010. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

The petitioner contends that the dispensing unit is manufactured by M/s.Larsen and Tubro and it is periodically maintained by them. It is also stated that the seals are put by the Legal Metrology Department and for any error in measurement, the company as well as the department, referred to above, that have calibrated the equipment, are answerable. It is also pleaded that the petitioner was unnecessarily penalized for no fault of it.

The respondents filed counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition on several grounds, including the one as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner tampered with the machinery and inserted a spurious gear, with an oblique motive. Reference is made to the relevant clauses of the agreement and it is submitted that the petitioner is guilty of serious misconduct.

Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that even according to the notice issued by the respondents, the seal on the equipment was in tact and there was absolutely no basis for proceeding against the petitioner. He contends that the terms of agreement and other related documents are to the effect that under no circumstances, the petitioner shall touch or tamper with the equipment and it is not explained as to how the petitioner has access to the internal parts of the unit, even while the seal is in tact. It is urged that the writ petition is very much maintainable, since the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, arbitrariness, and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Sri T. Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner was under obligation to check accuracy of measurement everyday and he did not report at any point of time about the discrepancy. He contends that the root cause for short delivery of the product was found to be the interpolation with the gear and the experts opined that a furious gear was inserted. Learned counsel submits that a writ petition does not lie for resolution of disputes of this nature. He places reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Sri Lalitha Devi Gas Agencies v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai 2002 (5) ALD 389; Western India Plywoods Limited v. Collector of Customs, Cochin (2005) 12 SCC 731; Keraka State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil and others (2000) 6 SCC 293; and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Margadarsi Service Centre, Secunderabad 2010 (6) ALD 517 (DB), apart from an