Advocates appeared :
For State : Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Pushyamitra Bhargav

ORDER VIVEK RUSIA, J. : – Shri Yogesh Kumar Mittal learned counsel for IOC.

Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav learned counsel for the Dealer. * * * *

By this common order, both the writ petitions are being decided as both arose out order dated 29-11-2018 passed by Dispute Resolution Panel. For the sake of convenience, facts of Writ Petition No. 12708/2021 filed by Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) are being taken for deciding the case.

The petitioner/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “IOC”) has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 29-11-2018 passed by Dispute Resolution Penal (in short “DRP”) in case No. DRP/IOCL/RET/0003/2018 whereby the order of termination of dealership dated 12-1-2015 has been set aside.

2. The petitioner is a public sector undertaking of the Central Government engaged in the production and distribution of petrol, diesel and other petroleum products through its retail outlet dealership. The IOC has framed Marketing Discipline Guidelines initially in the year 1981-82 and thereafter revised/amended from time to time. All the retail outlets/dealers selected and appointed by the IOC are bound to follow the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “MDG”) in order to maintain the discipline and ethics in the sale of oil products. The respondent was given a license to own and run a retail outlet established at location Dhoswas, District Ratlam in the M/s Gagan Automobile and the agreement was executed on 28-11-2008.

3. On 26-11-2013, two authorized officers of the Department of Anti Adulteration Cell, IOC (in short “AAC”) visited the aforesaid retail outlet for conducting a surprise inspection. The Manager and other employees were found there at the time of inspection, after carrying out certain inspections at various places of the outlet. They checked all the three nozzles [1 of motor spirit (MS) 2 of High- Speed Diesel (HSD)] and all three nozzles were found to be within the permissible limit. ACC team has suspected an electronic chip in the pulsar cable at the motherboard end in MS DU of L and T made Z line Model;GS74624 Sr. No. GW 2877. In order to do the intensive checking of Dispensing Unit, the Field Officer of IOC was called for assistance but the staff of the dealer locked the door of the sales building to restrain them to check the Dispensing Unit. However they were permitted to inspect other documents in the office but because of the continuous destruction and interference, the AAC decided to suspend the further inspection. According to the petitioner, the attendant and Manager of the retail outlet surrounded the team members and forcefully pushed and abused them by using foul and disrespectful language. Due to this, the officers could not continue the sampling and investigation at the retail outlet and left the location and came back to the hotel. A fact-finding letter dated 27-11-2013 was written to the higher authority. The IOC has decided to issue a show-cause notice to the dealer and accordingly same was issued, the respondent submitted a reply dated 6-12-2013 denying all such incidents. Being dissatisfied with the reply a show cause notice for termination was issued to the respondent. The respondent again submitted a reply to the show-cause notice and vide order dated 12-1-2014, the IOC has terminated the dealership of the respondent under clauses 8.5.1 and 8.5.4 of MDG 2013 and clauses 42, 43 and 45 (K) and (o) of the Dealership Agreement.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid termination, the respondent filed an appeal before the Executive Director (Retail Sales) of the IOC. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the amendment of MDG 2012 took place and the