B.K. Nayak, J. - (1.) THE original and appellate orders passed under Annexures -8 and 9 respectively by the opposite parties terminating the dealership agreement with the petitioner, have been assailed in this writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner was selected for running a retail outlet dealership of petrol (MS) and High Speed Diesel at Karanjia (Ankura) and on the basis of agreement executed between the petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner operated the outlet. It is the case of the petitioner that while operating the retail outlet, all on a sudden on 05.03.2013 the petrol delivery machine started creating problems and the Totalizer of the machine started jumping, for which the petitioner stopped operating the delivery machine and tried to contact the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation at Bhubaneswar over cell phone. But due to network problems, he could not contact any of them. The petitioner intimated the Inspector (Legal Metrology) Karanjia on 06.03.2013 and lodged a complaint before him. On inspection the Inspector (Legal Metrology) decided that the Totalizer needs to be replaced. On 12.03.2013 an additional Totalizer was connected to the machine in presence of the Inspector (Legal Metrology), Karanjia for the purpose of trial and was under observation for 24 hours by the Weights & Measures Department of Karanjia for which it was not sealed. On 13.03.2013 the officers of Anti Adulteration Cell and S.O. (Retail Sales) Baripada Sales Area of Indian Oil Corporation made an inspection of the petitioner's outlet and reported that an extra totalizer was connected with cable coming from micro processor controller box and the original tottalizer was disconnected and the extra totalizer was not sealed by the Weights and Measures Department. The inspecting team sealed the nozzle of the dispensing unit. On the basis of the report, notice was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure -2 for violation of Clause No. 8.2 (iii) & (iv) of MDG -2012 read with Clause -8 (i) of the dealership agreement and asking for show cause as to why action as stipulated in the agreement shall not be taken. On receipt of the notice (Annexure -2), the petitioner filed his show cause along with copy of the letter of Inspector (Legal Metrology) Karanjia vide Annexure -4 stating inter alia that he tried to contact officers of the Indian Oil Corporation over telephone, but could not succeed due to network problems and, therefore, he informed the Weights and Measures Department, Baripada and the officers of the said department installed the additional totalizer on a trial basis. The petitioner also submitted a further reply vide Annexure -6. Since the decision on the petitioner's show cause was delayed, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 26789 of 2013 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 12.12.2013 directing the authority of the Corporation to finalise the matter within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the order dated 31.01.2014 under Annexure -8 was intimated to the petitioner cancelling his dealership as per the terms of the agreement. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order in appeal, which was dismissed by opposite party No. 1 by his order dated 20.06.2014 (Annexure -9).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that by fixing the extra totalizer to the machine in his outlet and not sealing the same by the petitioner was not with malafide intention but because of the trouble detected in the totalizer of the machine and that the petitioner having failed to contact the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation over phone, with the assistance of the Officers of the Weights and Measures Department, Karanjia and the Inspector (Legal Metrology) fixed the extra totalizer for test which cannot be said to be unauthorized and, therefore, the cancellation orders under Annexures -8 and 9 are liable to be quashed.;