Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt Nibedita Roy, W/o Sisir Kumar Roy – Respondent
WA 149 of 2018
Decided on : 02-08-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Petroleum Retail Outlet dealership - Order of termination of dealership - Writ appeal is preferred by appellant for assailing order passed by learned Single Bench accepting writ petition preferred by respondent/writ petitioner against termination of her Petroleum Retail Outlet dealership vide order rejecting appeal preferred against order of termination of dealership – Learned Single Bench delved deep into disputed factual issues and re-appreciated evidence while passing impugned order, which is not within domain of powers of judicial review conferred upon this Court by virtue of Article 226 of Constitution of India. Para 13.
Finding of the Court: Discussion made and reasoning assigned by appellate authority for affirming termination of dealership of respondent/writ petitioner on account of tampering of totalizer seal, as mentioned in Appellate Authority’s order is in total contradiction of show-cause notice and order of jurisdictional authority - However, it cannot be denied that learned Single Bench delved deep into disputed factual issues and re-appreciated evidence while passing impugned order, which is not within domain of powers of judicial review conferred upon this Court by virtue of Article 226 of Constitution of India – Court is of opinion that extensive probe into correctness or otherwise of factual matrix of case should have been undertaken by Appellate Authority - Thus, it is a fit case warranting remand of matter to Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of appeal of respondent/writ petitioner on merits – Court hereby set aside order passed by learned Single Bench.
Result: Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The instant intra-Court writ appeal is preferred by the appellant Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) for assailing the order dated 29.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Bench accepting the writ petition, being WP(C) No.3567/2013, preferred by the respondent/writ petitioner against the termination of her Petroleum Retail Outlet dealership vide order dated 20.09.2012 as well as the order dated 22.05.2013 rejecting the appeal preferred against the order of termination of dealership.
2. The facts in nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of the writ appeal are noted hereinbelow.
The respondent/writ petitioner was awarded with the dealership of a retail outlet by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) at Silchar town vide order dated 27.11.1993, in pursuance whereof she established a petrol pump in the name and style of M/s. Sardamani Filling Concern at Tarapur area of Silchar town in the district of Cachar. The Dispensing Unit (DU) of the petrol pump required periodical re-calibration. The respondent/writ petitioner wrote a letter dated 28.11.2011 to the Legal Metrology Department (Weights and Measures Department) [W&M Department] informing the authorities that re-calibration exercise be carried out in her presence before 09.12.2011 as she would be travelling to Kolkata for medical treatment on that day. However, the W&M Department visited the petrol pump of the respondent/writ petitioner on 10.12.2011, carried out the re-calibration exercise by opening the machine and sealed the DU by unusual process. The exercise was carried out in presence Mr. Gaurav Suman, the representative of the Original Equipment Service Manufacturer (OEM), which had supplied and installed the machinery.
3. It is stated that nothing unusual was found in the Unit when the W&M Department carried out re-calibration exercise on 10.12.2011. However, on 13.12.2011, a team of the Anti-Adulteration Cell (AAC) of the IOCL visited the petrol pump of the respondent/writ petitioner, opened the DU and reportedly found an additional fitting in the MSDU (Motor Spirit Dispensing Unit). During this inspection, it was noted that the seal put by the W&M Department was intact. On the very same day i.e. on 13.12.2011, the operation of the petrol pump was suspended; an explanation was called from the respondent/writ petitioner by letter dated 19.12.2011 to which she submitted reply denying the allegations leveled against her.
4. A Joint Inspection Committee was constituted by the IOCL authorities which visited the site on 25.03.2011 and, upon conducting inspection, submitted a report stating therein that there was an additional/unauthorized gear in the DU of the petrol pump by means whereof it was possible to manipulate the actual quantity of delivery of the MS Oil, thereby indulging in short supply of fuel.
5. On the basis of the said report of the Joint Inspection Committee, a show-cause notice dated 08.06.2012 was served upon the respondent/writ petitioner calling her to explain as to why the dealership should not be terminated. The respondent/writ petitioner submitted her reply dated 21.06.2012 denying the allegations leveled in the show-cause notice dated 08.06.2012.
6. The IOCL authorities thereafter issued the order dated 20.09.2012 terminating the dealership of the respondent/writ petitioner, who preferred an appeal on 10.10.2012 assailing the order of termination. However, such appeal came to be rejected by order dated 22.05.2013.
7. The orders dated 20.09.2012 and 22.05.2013 were put to challenge by the respondent/writ petitioner by filing WP(C) No.3567/2013.
The said writ petition came to be accepted by the learned Single Bench by order dated 29.03.2018 with the following pertinent observations and findings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of natural justice and the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction in re-appreciating evidence.
Termination of dealership can be justified under critical irregularities per Marketing Discipline Guidelines when seals are tampered, reinforcing limited scope of judicial review.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative actions, ruling that reliance on undisclosed evidence rendered the termination of the dealership arbi....
Consideration of the petitioner's defense and the expert opinion of the OEM is crucial in dealership termination cases to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice.
The court upheld the termination of the dealership agreement based on the critical irregularities as per the Marketing Discipline Guidelines.
The presence of unauthorized fittings in a dispensing unit constitutes a breach of the dealership agreement, justifying termination of the dealership.
The court upheld the legality of dealership termination based on confirmed tampering evidence, affirming procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles, invalidating the petitioner's....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
