Judicial review in technical matters is limited; courts should defer to expert findings unless proven arbitrary or unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the appellant-original petitioner assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 15934 of 2023.

2. The prayers made by the appellant-original petitioner in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Executive Director (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation-respondent No. 3.

3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments of both the parties was pleased to observe that the writ court is not supposed to sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the competent Appellant Authority and/or to re-appreciate the evidence for itself. When the evidence is based on satisfactory or sufficient fact, then no interference would be required to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the wake of such observations, the writ petition preferred by the appellant-original petitioner was dismissed.

4. The factual matrix leading to filing of the writ petition is that, sometime in the year 2012, respondent No. 1 issued notice for allotment of the petroleum outlet at Rajula, Gujarat. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted necessary forms. Pursuant to the application, a selection process took place and petitioner was selected as first choice. After going through the entire procedure, an agreement was executed between petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 28.08.2012, which was addressed as Dispensing Pump and Selling License (hereinafter referred to as “the DPSL”). Subsequent to the agreement between the parties, Marketing Discipline Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “the MDG”) were brought into force on 08.01.2013. The MDG was issued by the Government of India for Public Undertakings of Oil Marketing Companies. The agreement between petitioner and respondent continued for 10 years during which there was no dispute between the parties.

4.1 It is the case of the petitioner that an inspection was carried out at the outlet premises of the petitioner on 27.01.2022, wherein certain deficiencies were reported. As per one of the inspection report, the Multi Product Dispenser (hereinafter referred to as “the MPD)/Automatic Tank Gauge (hereinafter referred to as “the ATG”) were switched to offline/manual mode without authorization from the respondent. Pursuant to the inspection, the respondent communicated to the petitioner on 27.01.2022 explaining the breach by the petitioner, particularly of Clause 5.1.16 of the MDG. In the wake of such irregularities, the sales and supply by the Corporation to the petitioner were suspended. The communication dated 27.01.2022 was replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 02.02.2022.

4.2 Pursuant to the reply given by the petitioner, two member committee was formed by the respondent consisting of two senior members of the respondent Corporation. The committee conducted another inspection on 21.02.2022 in the presence of representative of the petitioner. The committee based on their observations, advised to seal cards of MPD bearing serial No. 12EB0346V and send it to the laboratory for testing. A joint observation report of the committee was prepared on 21.02.2022 in the presence of representative of the petitioner, and the MPD was sent for lab testing. However, while sending the MPD to lab testing, it was observed that the petitioner had sold 13,133 litres of motor spirit between the date of suspension i.e. 27.01.2022 till 22.2.2022. Subsequent to the inspection, communications were addressed by the petitioner to the respondent.

4.3 Another inspection at retail outlet was undertaken on 26.03.2022 and 19.05.2022 by the respondent in presence of the Manager of the retail outlet of the petitioner. Many irregularities were found out. I