- (1.) THIS special Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 1335 (M/S) of 2009. The respondent/petitioner had approached this Court challenging the order dated 13.06.2008 passed by General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. terminating the respondent/petitioner's Retail Outlet Dealership alloted to him under the Freedom Fighters quota. The respondent/petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23.01.2009 passed by the appellate authority upholding the order of termination. The termination of petitioner's dealership, inter alia, was on the ground that the MS and HSD -1 Dispensing Units were found to be fitted with additional fittings, which is not an integral part of the Dispensing Unit and was being used for manipulation of delivery petroleum product at will, with an intention to cheat customers. On the basis of inspection report dated 13.02.2006, a show cause notice dated 16.03.2006 was issued by the corporation to the respondent/petitioner, to which, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 12.04.2006. After considering the reply, the orders impugned, in the writ petition, was passed.
(2.) LEARNED Single Judge after considering the rival submissions allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2012 which has been assailed by the corporation. The operative portion of the impugned order is as follows: - "Once the respondents permitted the petitioner to continue its supply which was certified also without doing recalibration of the instrument, which continued for the period about more than two years, itself establishes that there was no serious irregularity in supply of oil, which leads this court to form an opinion that the petitioner has not caused such serious irregularity in supply of oil as it leads the termination of his Dealership. Therefore, the order of termination dated 13th of June, 2008, passed by the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., i.e. opposite party No.3 terminating the petitioner's Retail Outlet Dealership allotted to the petitioner under the Freedom Fighters quota as well as the order dated 23rd of January, 2009, passed by the appellate authority upholding the order of termination, are hereby quashed and the direction is issued to the respondents to restore the petitioner's supply of oil. In the aforesaid terms the writ petition is allowed."
(3.) HEARD Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent. Sri Ashok Pandey appears for the respondent/petitioner. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant/respondent that the case has been decided on the premise that it was a case of short supply whereas the cancellation of the dealership was on account of additional gear being fitted, by the respondent/petitioner, resulting in erratic supply of petroleum product. The penalty clause of Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005, clearly states, that if, there is any maneuvering in the Dispensing Unit it is to be visited with the penalty of cancellation of dealership, thus the learned Single Judge proceeded on wrong premise. The judgment and order is also perse perverse as it does not take notice of the fact that the respondent/petitioner had admitted his guilt of malpractices i.e. having fitted additional gear in the Dispensing Unit. There were three Dispensing Units. The supply in respect of one Dispensing Unit was suspended and as regard calibration, under the 2005 Guidelines the corporation is to undertake the process of re -calibration only if it is satisfied with the reply of the dealer against the alleged malpractices, otherwise the re -calibration is to be demanded by the concerned dealer which was not demanded in the present case by the respondent/petitioner.;