IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 22060 OF 2024

06.02.2026 Between:

M/s Sandeep Filling Station, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Dealer, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. V. Ramanjaneyulu ….. Petitioner And Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise)

Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director/

The Appellate Authority & others ….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner is a long-standing petrol retail outlet dealer, holding a valid dealership licence dated 24.03.2021 issued by the 1^st respondent, which is subsisting for a period of five years. It has been operating the petrol bunk for over 35 years without any allegation of malpractice. The retail outlet is situated on land admeasuring 2043.66 sq. meters at Munagala Village, Suryapet District, taken on lease from the 1st respondent for a period of 30 years under a lease agreement dated 15.09.2000.

1.1. On 07.10.2021, the District Legal Metrology Officer, Suryapet, conducted an inspection of the outlet and alleged short delivery and presence of additional electronic gadgets (chips) in two dispensing nozzles, based on information allegedly received from the police. Though the seals affixed by the Legal Metrology Department were found intact, action was initiated against the petitioner under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Petitioner consistently denied installation of any chips, contending that no photographs or videography were taken, that the dispensing units were supplied and sealed by authorized agencies, and that the alleged short delivery could be due to other operational factors. It is asserted that any alleged tampering was without his knowledge or involvement.

1.2. Based on the inspection report, show cause notices were issued by the 3rd respondent, to which petitioner submitted detailed explanations. During this period, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Controller, Legal Metrology, Hyderabad, who by order dated 20.01.2022 permitted installation of a new dispensing unit and allowed petitioner to run the outlet, without prejudice to pending proceedings, in public interest. Despite this, respondents failed to implement the said order, compelling the petitioner to file Writ Petition No. 27515 of 2022, which is still pending.

1.3. Subsequently, relying on a Gilbarco Veeder Root (GVR) analysis report dated 30.11.2021, respondents alleged tampering of pulsars, though the said report does not disclose the manner of removal, sealing, testing, or whether the seals were intact, nor does it establish any scientific or conclusive proof of manipulation. Petitioner contends that the report is based only on visual inspection and is unreliable. On 22.02.2023, the 2^ndrespondent terminated petitioner’s dealership agreement. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 6436 of 2023, wherein this Court, by order dated 03.11.2023, set aside the termination and remanded the matter to the 2^ndrespondent for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing. However, upon remand, the 2^nd respondent again terminated the dealership by proceedings dated 12.02.2024, without properly considering petitioner’s explanation, without complying with the directions of this Court, and without dealing with the earlier order of the Controller, Legal Metrology.

1.4. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal on 29.02.2024 along with a stay petition. During pendency of the appeal, respondents illegally took possession of the retail outlet, sealed the dispensing units, and allotted the petrol bunk to the 4^th respondent by issuing a fresh licence dated 11.03.2024, without following due process under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and in violation of the dealership agreement. Such action was taken without awaiting the outcome of the appeal or stay petition. Ultimately, by impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2024, the 1^st respondent rejected the appeal and confirmed the te