Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana for the petitioners; Sri Vikas Budhwar for the contesting respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.
(2.) The present petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 31.10.2014 and 23.09.2015 passed by the Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (in short BPCL) and the Appellate Authority/Executive Director, BPCL, respectively, by which the dealership agreement of the petitioner-firm, dated 03.11.2011, with BPCL has been terminated and the appeal preferred against it has been dismissed.
(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a Dispensing Pump and Selling License (in short DSPL or dealership agreement) was executed between BPCL and the petitioner no.2 (proprietor of petitioner no.1 i.e. petitioner-firm) on 03.11.2011 whereby the petitioner was permitted to enter the retail outlet premises of BPCL to use its facilities and to sell the petroleum products of BPCL in terms of the dealership agreement. On 14.08.2013, an inspection was carried out by a team of Quality Control Officers who discovered that MS DU (dispensing unit) was delivering 90ml short per 5 liters measure dispensed; deliveries in L&T Zline was found to be delivering 60ml, 40 ml and 20 ml in excess per 5 liters product dispensed; electronic tampering was observed in sensor card of pulsar of dispensing unit of MS DU and L&T Zline; in L&T Pacemaker, the standard sealing procedure was not followed as the pulsar cover was not sealed by W & M Department, further, the gear cover was not included while sealing metering assembly by W&M Department; positive stock variation was observed in MS by 645 liters beyond permissible variation of 4% of tank stock i.e. 229 liters; no maintenance report for repairs of DU-MS and DU-HSD was found which could confirm repairs of the two units, further the dealer was found maintaining Allen keys which fitted in the pulsar box cover Allen bolts; aluminum bucket with bonding wire were not available at RO; and tank lorry sample of MS was not maintained as per MDG 2012. Following discovery of irregularities, sale and supplies from the outlet was suspended. Thereafter, testing reports were obtained and a show cause notice dated 13.09.2013 was issued to the petitioner's firm to submit explanation in respect of the irregularities found. The show cause notice also cited various clauses of DSPL to demonstrate that it was the responsibility of the licensee to see that full measure is delivered from the pumps installed by the company on the premises. Upon receipt of show cause notice, the petitioner submitted its reply. The stand taken in the reply was that the charge of short delivery by DU- MS was not correct; that L&T Z line was not in use and was under repair; that he has no knowledge of Pulsar and other related electronic instruments, moreover, machines were installed after shifting from other place; that the gear cover was not included while sealing metering assembly by W&M Department; that stock variation has occurred on account of MS tank behavior and as such the dip reading may not be accurate; that despite request regular repairs were not carried out; that Allen keys might have been there but its use is not known nor it was used for opening pulsar box cover; that aluminum bucket was there but not in working condition; that tank lorry sample of MS was kept to the extent of one liter and it was not within the knowledge of the petitioner that two liters sample was required to be kept.;