JUDGMENT :

Ninala Jayasurya, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P. No. 3105 of 2018, the respondents therein instituted the present appeal.

2. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner/respondent who is a dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, appellant No. 1 herein, aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 2/appellant No. 2 dated 03.01.2018, confirming the order of termination of dealership, passed by the respondent No. 3/appellant No. 3 dated 14.07.2015.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition as set out in the affidavit thereof may be stated thus :

The petitioner entered into a dealership agreement with respondent No. 1/appellant No. 1 under 'B' category dealership for running an outlet for the purpose of sale of Motor Spirit and/or HSD/Motor Oil, Greases and other motor accessories vide agreement dated 10.04.1990 and had been successfully running for over 25 years. The petitioner's outlet was subjected to periodic inspection and no irregularities/infirmities have been found by any officer at any point of time. On 05.02.2015, respondent No. 4 conducted inspection of the outlet, and alleged that an additional/unauthorized double gear was found in the petrol dispensing unit (Model No. MIDCO MECH 981 C) manufactured by MIDCO company and that there was positive stock of variation of (+) 821 Lts., in petrol and negative stock variation of (-) 393 Lts., in diesel. While recording the same in the report, it was mentioned that the seal of Weights and Measurements on the dispensing unit is intact.

4. On the basis of the said report, the respondent No. 3, issued a letter titled as 'explanation letter' on 23.02.2015 and called for explanation from the petitioner to which a detailed explanation dated 26.02.2015 was submitted inter alia contending that allegation of double gear is false and unsubstantiated as respondent No. 4 himself stated in the report that the seal of Weights and Measures is intact and therefore, any additional fitting in the dispensing unit is impossible. Further that as maintenance and service of dispensing unit is by the members of respondent No. 1, the petitioner cannot be held liable for any inherent fittings in the dispensing unit.

5. Dissatisfied with the explanation, a Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2015 proposing to terminate of dealership was issued by respondent No. 3. The petitioner submitted reply dated 03.07.2015 reiterating its earlier explanation and further asserted that it has not committed any breach of the terms of the agreement or the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 (for short "MDG"). However, respondent No. 3 had issued a termination letter dated 14.07.2015 inter alia holding that the petitioner violated the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012.

6. Against the said order of termination, the petitioner approached respondent No. 2 and filed an appeal on 24.08.2015 as provided under Clause 8.9 of MDG. The respondent No. 2 afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, passed order in the appeal on 03.01.2018 holding that the termination of the dealership of the petitioner is in accordance with the Guidelines based on the established fact of unauthorized fitting.

7. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides and referring to the brief factual matrix, allowed the writ petition by placing reliance on the judgment of High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in P. Laxmikant Rao v. Union of India, 2011 (3) ALD 505 wherein it was observed that the equipment for measuring and supply of petroleum products is chosen and fitted by the respondents themselves and a dealer has absolutely no say in the matter and a subsequent judgment in Ram Lal Agarwal v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others, 2014 (4) ALD 139 wherein the order of termination was quashed as the same does not record a finding of deliberate insertion of double gear and actual manipulation of delivery of fuel and proceeded as if it