- (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, which is a partnership firm running a retail outlet of Indian
(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's retail outlet commands good reputation in the town and there has never been any complaint of any kind whatsoever. That on 13th February, 2006 two officials made inspec tion the petitioner's outlet. During inspection neither anything wrong was found nor petitioner was told any such thing, but to the utter surprise of the petitioner, he received a notice on 14th March, 2006 from the respondent No. 3 to the effect that during the inspection of the petitioner's outlet on 13th February, 2006 an additional gear was found fitted with dispensing unit and the petitioner was asked to show cause. A copy of the show-cause notice is attached as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Petitioner was asked to submit reply of the aforesaid show cause notice. The petitioner by the letter dated 28th March, 2006 submitted the reply denying all the allegations and demanded a copy of the inspection report which has been relied upon by the respondents in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Petitioner again received a show cause notice dated 1st August, 2006 wherein it is alleged that an inspection was made on the petitioner's retail outlet on 13th February, 2006 and three irregularities were found. This notice also refers to the show cause notice dated 14th March, 2006 issued by the respondents and asked the petitioner to submit its explanation. IT is stated that a copy of the inspection report has already supplied which was conducted on 13. 2. 2006. A perusal of the notice dated 14th March, 2006 and that of 1st August, 2006 clearly demonstrates that the charges are different in both the notices. In the first notice dated 14th March, 2006 there is only one charge but in the second show cause notice charges have been increased to three charges. That again on 27th July, 2006 an inspection was done by the joint inspection team of oil industry and the respondent No. 3 and the entire stocks, seals and the dispensing unit were found in order except one dispensing unit. Delivery of 25 ml. was found short which was within the permissible limit and the inspection team suggested for recalibration of the dispensing units. That during the period when the petitioner was asked to submit reply to the show cause notice, the supply of the petroleum products to I the petitioner has not been suspended. That pursuant to the dated 21st July, 2006 the petitioner deposited requisite amount for recaliberation of the one of the units of the petitioner's outlet by the respondents and the Weights and Measurement Department. The petitioner also submitted its reply to the show cause on 10th August, 2006. IT would not be out of place to mention here that after the petitioner's replying all the charges, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, peti tioner again received notice dated 19th August, 2006 by the respondent No. 3 wherein he was asked to show cause regarding the allegations made in the in spection, conducted on 21st July, 2006. The petitioner submitted its reply on 28th August, 2006 categorically denying the charges made in the charge-sheet and the alleged short delivery of 25 ml. which according to the petitioner was within the norms prescribed. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. The petitioner was further served with a show cause notice dated 19th August, 2006 with regard to the inspection made on 21st July, 2006 informing the petitioner that it was found that there was short delivery in one of the dispensing units at the petitioner's outlet delivering 25 ml short in every 5 liters measures the petitioner was asked to show cause. Petitioner again denied the same by its reply dated 28th August, 2006. Respondents by their letter dated 25th October, 2006 asking the petitioner to explain its stand taken in the reply dated 28th August, 2006. The petitioner sub mitted the reply to the aforesaid letter dated 21st October, 2006 by letter dated 8th November, 2006. Petitioner again received a show-cause notice on 14th No vember, 2006 demanding the documentary proof in support of the petitioner's reply dated 8th November, 2006. Needless to say, that policy of variation is a document which is in possession of the respondents. However, the petitioner again submitted a detailed reply on 20th November, 2006 to the aforesaid notice dated 14th November, 2006. Petitioner's contention is that from the narration of the aforesaid fact it is clear that the respondents have initiated two parallel proceedings against the petitioner. First, by notice dated 14th March, 2006 based on inspection con ducted on 13th February, 2006 and second by the notice dated 19th August, 2006 with regard to the. inspection dated 21st July, 2006. Petitioner replied both the notices as already stated above. That ultimately by their order dated 27th November, 2006 the respondents terminated the dealership of the petitioner. In the order dated 27th November, 2006, no reason whatsoever has been assigned while rejecting reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. A perusal of order impugned clearly demonstrates that this has been passed with out application of mind and principles of natural justice are violated because reply submitted by the petitioner have not been considered by the respondents. That the different show cause notice issued by the respondents clearly demonstrates that there is variance of the charges which has neither been ex plained in any of the charge-sheet nor petitioner's reply to the aforesaid variance has been considered while passing the impugned order. The order impugned does not state correct facts regarding petitioners' reply to the inspection note. It is thus prayed that the order impugned deserves to be quashed.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein basic facts have not been denied by the respondents as most of the paras are answered with the phrase "need no comments". A perusal of the impugned order substantiates the petitioner's contention that the petitioner's reply to the show cause has not been considered by the respondents. It is also clear from the perusal of the impugned order that the respondents have not assigned any rea son in the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Marketing Discipline Guidelines and submitted that since the petitioner has a remedy of challenging the termination order to the appropriate authority who shall decide the same, therefore, petitioner should be relegated to the authority as contemplated under clause Note 4 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines.;