- (1.) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a company incorporated, functioning under the control of the department of Petroleum and Natual Gas, Government of India, engaged in refining and selling of petroleum products, through its territory manager, has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Additional Civil Judge ( Sr. Div.), Meerut in Suit No. 1020 of 2013 dated 29.3.2014, granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, as well as its affirmance in appeal No. 63 of 2014 vide order dated 28.10.2014.
(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to filing of writ petition, are that the plaintiff-respondent was appointed as dealer by the petitioners for sale of its petroleum products and a dealership agreement was executed between the parties on 14.6.1996. An inspection of the retail outlet of the plaintiff-respondent was conducted on 16.4.2013, by a term of officers including Chief Manager quality control cell, wherein, following short comings are alleged to have been found: "(i) The ULP dispensing unit Z line L & % GX11064 was delivering short 240 ml. 250 ml. And 230 ml. Per 5 litre product dispensed in three consecutive deliveries. On switching on and off the electrical panel, the deliveries were within limits. W & M Seals were not properly put on the totalizer and totalizer was removal keeping W & M Seals intact. 91.48% of sales were done through this dispensing unit during the last four months. (ii) The ULP dispensing unit Z line L & T 4532 W & M seals were not properly put on the totalizer and totalizer was removable keeping W & M seals intact. (iii) The HSD dispensing unit Midco MEM 03A1513V was delivering 110 ml., 100 ml. Short per 5 litre product dispensed. On switching on/off the power supply, the dispensing unit was delivering 100 ml. Short per litre measure dispensed. 44.34% sale was done through this dispensing unit in last four months. (iv) The HSD dispensing unit Midco 980C 8M2614 could not be checked for deliveries. The totalizer was temperable after opening the top cover. The glass cover could be removed easily giving access to the totalizer gears. (v) In HSD Midco Old Model 840 totalizer was temparable with W & M seals intact. (vi) Positive stock variation in MS by 5619 litres beyond permissible limit of +/.4% of tank stock and 0.75% of handing loss. (vii) Positive stock variation in HSD by 27557 litres beyond permissible limit +/.4% of tank stock and 0.20% of handing loss. (viii) Hydrometer/thermometer calibration certificate expired on 18.10.2011 and calibration certificate thereafter was not available. (ix) Samples were also taken for checking petroleum products so that aspects of adulteration could be verified. "
(3.) An inspection report was prepared, which was signed by the officials of the petitioners and it also contains the stamp and signatures of the plaintiff-respondent. However, the plaintiff-respondent disputed their signatures on the inspection report and it is alleged that the inspection report itself was manipulated. The charges essentially against the plaintiff-respondent were in two parts;(i) adulteration of petroleum products and (ii) short supply of petroleum products. With regard to allegation of adulteration, it appears that samples were taken from 3 different sources i.e. (i) supply location sample, (ii) corresponding tank lorry sample and (iii) retail out let sample. It is admitted to the petitioners that only first sample i.e. the supply location sample met the standard contemplated, whereas, the 2nd and 3rd samples i.e. tank lorry sample and retail out let sample failed. It was found that the allegation of short supply of petroleum products, however, were found,which have already been referred to in the inspection report.;