The main legal point established in the judgment is that adherence to the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, particularly in cases of critical irregularities, justifies the termination of dealership. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the significance of affording due process to the affected party.

JUDGMENT :

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

1. The present intra-court appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the order dated 27-6-2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP-17088-2018 [M/s. Jai Ambe Petroleum Kendra vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others]. The appellant-petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 14-12-2017 by which dealership of the appellant was terminated and the order dated 25-6-2018 whereby the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal. The writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 27-6-2019.

2. The facts which are imperative to be stated are, that the appellant was appointed as a retail outlet dealer of the respondent, Indian Oil Corporation [for short, "the IOCL"] for sale and supply of Petrol/High Speed Diesel (HSD)/Motor Oil/Grease and other petroleum products, vide agreement dated 22-01-2009. On 10-7-2017 Sales Officer of the IOCL randomly inspected the retail outlet of the appellant and found that there was no separate toilet for men/women. He collected samples of MS and HSD of both tank lorry and nozzle and sent the same for the BIS specification test to a laboratory. As per report of the laboratory the samples of MS of both tank lorry and nozzle failed the test of the BIS specification, however, the sample of HSD of both tank lorry and nozzle passed the BIS specification. The said report was communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 01-8-2017. Pursuant to the report dated 31-7-2017, sale and supply of the outlet of the appellant was suspended and after recording meter reading of dispensing machines, the same were sealed.

3. On 24-8-2017 while conducting MDT inspection (toilet inspection) by Shri Neeraj K. Chhipa, the officer of the IOCL found that the petrol pump was operational. A report was submitted by him requesting further investigation in the case. Pursuant to which a committee was constituted and another inspection was conducted on 8-9-2017. During this inspection the outlet of the appellant was found operational, despite suspension of sale. The dispensing unit showing changed reading was video-graphed by the officers of the IOCL.

4. On 10-10-2017 a show cause notice was issued to the appellant, as to why action should not be taken against the appellant including termination of dealership. The appellant put forth its stand by way of reply dated 23-10-2017. Subsequently, the District Supply Officer, Raisen again inspected the premises of the appellant on 21-9-2017 and submitted his report.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of suspension, the appellant preferred a writ petition forming the subject-matter of WP-17462-2017. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to take a final decision on the show cause notice within two weeks. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 instead of deciding the show cause notice, as directed by this Court on 13-11-2017, terminated the dealership of the appellant vide letter dated 27-12-2017. The order of termination, thereafter was assailed by way of writ petition (WP-604-2018) which was dismissed on 10-01-2018 with liberty to the appellant to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellant moved a review petition for recall of the order, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28-02-2018. Pursuant to the order dated 10-01-2018 passed in WP-604-2018 the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed on 25-6-2018, which was subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order.

6. The respondents filed a detailed reply contending inter alia, that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 (for brevity, "the MDG 2012") provides for termination of the dealership in case of critical (Clause 8.2) and major (Clause 8.3) irregularities by the d