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.

JUDGMENT

Alok Jain, J. - The present appeal raises challenge to the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby CWP-21228-2018, filed by respondent No.1-M/s Punjab Motor Store, has been allowed and the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the present appellant, terminating the retail outlet dealership, as well as the appellate order dated 30.07.2018 have been quashed. The appellant-M/s Indian Oil Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), being aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court. Admittedly, the brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1- M/s Punjab Motor Stores was allotted a retail outlet dealership and an agreement dated 24.08.2011 was executed. Subsequent thereto, the appellant-Corporation inspected the outlet on 08.10.2013 and immediately thereafter when the consequent inspection was conducted on 16.10.2013, it was found that one unit was discharging less fuel causing shortfall to the tune of 220 ml. with every 5 liters and was sealed on account of the said fact. Subsequently, on 25.10.2013, expert inspection was done wherein it was found that the holographic seals affixed by the inspection team on 16.10.2013 were found to be replaced by another set of holographic seals.

2. Subsequent thereto, the appellant registered a complaint and after calling for an explanation from respondent No.1, a show cause notice for termination of the retail outlet was issued to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 duly replied to the same and in the meanwhile filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was allowed vide order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur. However, the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation against the said order dated 31.10.2014 came to be partly allowed by the State Commission vide order dated 11.04.2016 and on further revision by the appellant, the revision petition was allowed vide order dated 03.01.2017 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein, it was held that the complaint itself was not maintainable.

3. The appellant after following the due process of law and abiding by the principles of natural justice, vide its communication dated 26.02.2018, terminated the retail outlet dealership of respondent No.1 against which the said respondent preferred an appeal before the competent authority which, after a detailed discussion and by recording detailed reasons, vide its order dated 30.07.2018, concluded that the termination of the dealership of respondent No.1 was in accordance with the terms of the dealership agreement. It was further recorded that the provisions of MDG-2012, based on established fact of tampering of holographic seals affixed on the dispensing unit (DU) on 16.10.2013 and as observed during the inspection on 25.10.2013 was fatal and upheld the order of termination passed by the Corporation.

4. The orders dated 26.02.2018 and 30.07.2018 were assailed by respondent No.1 by filing CWP-21228-2018 before this Court. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and while dealing with the dispute and the questions of fact, expressed its opinion as under:

'xx xx xx Regarding tampering with the holographic seals and replacement thereof, it needs to be observed that the petitioner would not derive any benefit thereby. Coupled with, this is the fact that the replaced seals had been issued to an official of the oil company who was a part of the inspecting team on 25.10.2013. It is thus, more than likely that the holographic seals had been tampered with and replaced by the inspecting team itself in order to frame the petitioner. This is only an inference and thus, it would also be appropriate to examine, whether, such an action (if done by the petitioner) would render it liable to termination of dealership. In my considered opinion, it would not as it does not amount to tampering with a dispensing unit nor does it amount to making sh