No innocent person should be penalized for no fault of his.

1. With the consent of learned counsels for the petitioner and respondents, this petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

2. Petitioner operates petroleum retail outlet. The outlet was provided with four dispensing units. Three of them from L&T company and one dispensing unit supplied by MIDCO. Periodically the retail outlet was inspected thoroughly and at no point of time, the inspecting officers noticed any deviation or malfunctioning or existence of external part in any dispensing unit was pointed out. The Legal and Metrological Department after conducting periodical inspections fixes seals on the units and all the seals were found intact.

3. On 13.02.2013 inspection team visited the premises of the retail outlet and conducted detailed inspection. In the forenoon when inspection was conducted nothing adverse was noticed and a favourable report was drawn. In the afternoon, in the absence of petitioner earlier report was reversed and an adverse report was drawn. The report alleges presence of double gear in one of the dispensing units. It also alleges on various issues concerning over all functioning of the outlet and its staff. However, the inspecting unit did not find any irregularity or illegality in functioning of the dispensing units; no differentiation was noticed in the dispensing of fuel nor the quality of petroleum products were found to be deficient in any manner.

4. On 18.02.2013 an order was served on the petitioner suspending the retail outlet from carrying out its business and also called for explanation from the petitioner on the findings recorded in the inspection report. On 20.03.2013 petitioner filed reply dealing with each and every aspect and also bringing to the notice of the respondent-corporation the illegal activities of two officers of the company. Since inspection report did not notice any illegality in the dispensing unit and the petroleum products were found to be correctly measured, the resumption of sales of petroleum was granted by order dated 30.03.2013. However, so far sales are not resumed, since petroleum products are not supplied by the respondent-corporation. On 29.09.2013 dealership was terminated. Hence, this writ petition.

5. Heard Sri V.Ravinder Rao, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order impugned in the writ petition on the following grounds:

a) It is illegal not to grant permission to examine the officers who were involved in the inspection and against whom petitioner has made allegations. It is illegal to obtain views of officers against whom petitioner made allegations of corruption and rely on them without even communicating those views to the petitioner.

b) It is illegal nor to communicate the inspection report prepared in the forenoon favourable to the petitioner. Video recording was made by petitioner. Video footage of the afternoon events show the existence of first report as admitted by the inspecting team.

c) Impugned order takes into consideration past issues contrary to Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG). Past issues were not subject matter of the show-cause notice. No opportunity was offered to the petitioner to offer his explanation. According to clause 8.5.5 of MDG, the issues which occurred five years prior to the current inspection should not be considered while taking penal action. The past issues which were referred to in the final order occurred in the year 2000 and 2003.

d) The mere presence of double gear per se cannot attract allegation of committing critical irregularity. Clause 5.1.4 of MDG is attracted only if it is proved that there was intention to manipulate delivery of fuel. In this case inspection report clearly disclosed that delivery was accurate, seals were found to be intact and the samples taken did not contain any impurities. Thus, what is alleged against petitioner cannot be classified as critical irregularity and thus termination