Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, PANKAJ BHATIA, JJ.
M/S Kamal Kant Automobiles And Another - Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And 2 Others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 25127 of 2018
Decided on : 18-02-2019
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Petitioners were appointed dealer in terms of an agreement executed in between petitioners and the respondent – Granted Licence for selling the petroleum products by District Supply Officer under the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil – Seeking for quashing of order – Held, Haste in which 30 years old dealership was terminated even without giving show-cause notice and/or giving an opportunity of hearing clearly indicates that the entire exercise was carried out by the respondent Corporation non-existent, irrelevant and on extraneous considerations – There has been a total violation of the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice – Samples were collected in complete violation of the procedural laws and in non-adherence of the guidelines of the respondent Corporation – On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes imperative in the interest of justice to quash and set aside termination order of dealership – Court directed respondent-Corporation to handover the possession of the petrol pump and restore the dealership of petrol pump to the appellant– Appeal allowed. (Para 36,37 and 38)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed dealer in terms of an agreement dated 18.10.2016 executed in between the petitioners and the respondent no. 1 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The petitioners were also granted a licence for selling the petroleum products by District Supply Officer under the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981.
Findings of the case:
Haste in which 30 years old dealership was terminated even without giving show-cause notice and/or giving an opportunity of hearing clearly indicates that the entire exercise was carried out by the respondent Corporation non-existent, irrelevant and on extraneous considerations – There has been a total violation of the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice – Samples were collected in complete violation of the procedural laws and in non-adherence of the guidelines of the respondent Corporation – On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes imperative in the interest of justice to quash and set aside termination order of dealership – Court directed respondent-Corporation to handover the possession of the petrol pump and restore the dealership of petrol pump to the appellant.
Result: Appeal allowed
Pankaj Bhatia, J.
1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Imran Syed and Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2.
2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.7.2017 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 7).
(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2, their agents to restore the dealership agreement dated 18.10.2016 and to forthwith restore the supply of the diesel and petrol to the petrol pump of the petitioner.
(C) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction in addition to and in supplement to refer to above, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(D) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.
3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:
4. The petitioners were appointed dealer in terms of an agreement dated 18.10.2016 executed in between the petitioners and the respondent no. 1 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The petitioners were also granted a licence for selling the petroleum products by District Supply Officer under the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981.
5. On 08.05.2017, a joint inspection was made out by team comprising of Additional District Magistrate, Hathras, District Supply Officer, Hathras, Inspector of Weight and Measures, Sales Officer of Indian Oil Corporation and Service Engineers of MIDCO and GILBARCO wherein the team found that the single nozzle machine dispensing diesel S.R. No. 13FH/104V appears to be tampered. Similarly, the double nozzle of diesel GILBARCO make S.R. No. 201502000728 also appeared to be tampered and similarly the petrol single nozzle make MIDCO S.R. No. OBFH0361 also appeared to be tampered.
6. An inspection report was prepared on the basis of inspection carried out and all the allegations were mentioned in the said inspection report on 8.5.2017 and the petitioners were served with a show cause notice by the respondent no. 3, District Supply Officer, Hathras calling upon the petitioners to explain the irregularities indicated by the inspection team in its report dated 08.05.2017, to which the petitioners filed this objection and submitted a reply on 08.07.2017, alongwith the objections filed by the petitioners, the petitioners also prayed that the pulsar card be sent for lab report to verify the correctness of the allegations levelled in the inspection report dated 08.05.2017. It has been further stated that an FIR was also filed on 10.7.2017 against petitioner no. 2, Ram Veer Singh (partner of the petitioner no. 1 firm) and its Manager Sri Vijendra Singh under section 3/7 E.C. Act read with Section 420 IPC. The said FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 343 of 2017, Police Station Sasni Kotwali, District Hathras. On the basis of the inspection and the FIR, the District Supply Officer passed an order dated 11.7.2017 suspending the licence of the petitioners.
7. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued a show cause notice on 23.6.2017 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why action be not taken against the petitioners on the basis of discrepancies pointed out by the inspection team in its report which has tarnished the image of the corporation. The petitioners gave a reply to the said show cause notice on 8.7.2017 denying all the allegations made in the show cause notice and further requested the company to send the alleged dispensing equipment for laboratory testing to ascertain the authenticity. Thereafter Corporation passed an order dated 24.7.2017 terminating the agre
SupremeToday
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
