Point of Law: Corporation must evolve a mechanism for testing of veracity and validity of order passed by lowest or lower authority/officer by higher authority/officer with adherence of norms of Natural Justice.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner, a transporter in business of transportation of fuels, has approached this Court challenging impugned show cause notice dated 17.1.2020 (Annexure P-12) as well as decision of termination of Transport Agreement dated 1.1.2019 and forfeiture of security deposit communicated vide letter dated 14.2.2020 (Annexure P-14) issued by respondent No. 2, on the ground that impugned action of respondents taken through respondent No. 2 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and outcome of vendetta against the petitioner for blowing whistle, against illegalities, irregularities being committed by local officials of respondent-Corporation in P.O.L. Depot Nalagarh, by submitting various applications/complaints, including complaints dated 4.10.2019 and 4.12.2019 (Annexure P-15) to the higher authorities and filing CWP No. 628 of 2019 in this High Court against respondent-Corporation and private persons.

2. Undisputed facts of present case are that Bulk Petroleum Road Transport Agreement (herein after referred to as the ‘Transport Agreement’) dated 1.1.2019 was entered between petitioner Vikrant Oil Carrier and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (herein after referred as ‘HPCL’) for road transport of bulk petroleum products from various storage points of HPCL to its consumers/other storage points. Under aforesaid Transport Agreement, petitioner has offered four tank trucks (TTs) bearing registration No. HR-39D-9470, HR-39D-1004, HR-56B-5852 and HR-56B-8795. These TTs were inducted and started plying w.e.f. 2.1.2019. On 7.2.2019, petitioner had made a written request to replace two TTs bearing No. HR-39D-9470 and HR-39D-1004 with two other TTs bearing registration No. HR-56B-8491 and HR-56B-4366. Despite the request, these trucks were not replaced, leading to issuance of notice by petitioner through counsel to respondent No. 2, wherein along with issue of replacement, various other illegalities and irregularities being committed at Nalagarh Depot of respondent-Corporation were brought in the notice of respondent-Corporation with request to take appropriate action and to allow the petitioner to replace the TTs. Instead of taking any action, as requested in the legal notice, successive letters were issued to the petitioner to continue the Trucks already inducted, which were sought to be replaced by the petitioner. In response to such letters, petitioner had informed that he had stopped the above referred two Trucks as they had been indulged in illegal activities with further submission that in replacement petitioner has already given documents of two vehicles, sought to be replaced. Correspondences in this regard continued from both sides.

3. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner had also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 628 of 2019 on 30.3.2019 against respondent-Corporation and some private respondents, whose trucks were inducted by the officials of Corporation for transportation of petroleum products but without genuine Calibration Certificate, on the basis of a fake Calibration Certificate managed and fabricated in connivance with the officials of the Corporation.

4. It is case of the petitioner that officials at Nalagarh Depot started providing lesser work to the TTs of petitioner to mount pressure upon him to withdraw CWP No. 628 of 2019, but instead of succumbing to the pressure, petitioner had stopped plying its third truck HR-65B-5852 on 30.10.2019 and fourth truck HR-26B-8795 w.e.f. 18.12.2019 with information about reason for doing so.

5. As per respondents, petitioner had stopped plying its truck without any information, whereas claim of the petitioner is that he had given written information to the concerned authority. Further vide communication dated 31.10.2019 sent to respondent No. 3 in response to communication dated 26.10.2019 and in continuation to communication of the petitioner dated 14.10.2019, petitioner had asked reasons for not replacing his two TTs, documents whereof he had already submitted. Vide