JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and record of the case may kindly be called for:-

1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order of termination of dealership retain outlet dated 10.02.2023 (Annex.14) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

3. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner-Firm has been operating a Retail Outlet/Petrol Pump Dealership (RO) at Village -Sanderao, District-Pali, Rajasthan in pursuance of the agreement entered between the petitioner and respondent-Corporation on 16.04.2019. The petitioner has two Dispensing Units (DU) i.e. MIDCO and GILBARCO VEEDER ROOT (GVR).

2.1. Upon the petitioner’s RO faced certain difficulties on 15.12.2020, the petitioner contacted the concerned persons, namely, Shri Atul Kumar and Shri Chetan Pandya, whereupon the petitioner was instructed to restart the DU in order to rectify the hindrance in operation. However thereafter, the MDT Committee visited the RO of the petitioner-Firm on 30.12.2020 for inspection of the said RO regarding certain errors (Error E09 and E28). Upon the said inspection by the Committee, the authorities shut down the DU in question.

2.2 Thereafter, the IOCL Retails Outlet MDT Inspection Report dated 30.12.2020 was prepared, stating therein that no manipulation or error has been found in the RO.

2.3. Subsequently, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) submitted a Lab Analysis Report – Rev.1.0 on 25.02.2021 wherein it was stated that E09/E28 errors were observed from 30.09.2020 to 30.12.2020; it was also stated therein that the manipulation was found in Dispensing Units (DU) of the RO in question. Thereafter, the concerned Officials, on 12.04.2021, arrived at the RO in question for the purpose of investigation, and collected all the relevant documents from the RO in question for Lab test. Thereafter, another Lab Analysis Report dated 23.08.2021 was submitted by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), wherein it was stated that no external component/device was found.

2.4. Thereafter, the respondents issued a letter/notice dated 08.09.2021 to the petitioner, while concluding that based on the DU error log analysis and investigation, it was established that the DU has been manipulated for delivery of fuel, and asked the petitioner-Firm to file reply thereto within 10 days regarding to the aforementioned allegation; failing which the proceedings, as per Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines-2012, were stipulated to be initiated.

2.4.1. The petitioner-Filed replied the said letter/notice along with the relevant service report on 16.09.2021, and stated that no device was ever found in the RO to derive the conclusion of manipulation by way of spurious external device. The respondents however, again issued a notice on 15.12.2021 with regard to the same DU error, while proposing termination of petitioner-Firm’s dealership as per clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines-2012; the same was received by the petitioner through E-mail on 24.12.2021. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the said notice, along with the relevant documents on 29.12.2021 through Email and R.P.A.D.

2.5 However, against the aforementioned notice dated 15.12.2021, the petitioner-Firm preferred S.B.C.W.P No.543/2022 before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of on 10.02.2022 by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-