AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This petition arises out of an order dated 20.06.2007 passed by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation cancelling the retail petroleum agency of the petitioner on several grounds. The writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench on 30th January, 2008 against which the Indian Oil Corporation went up in appeal before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7140 of 2008. The appeal was allowed on 31st August 2017 and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for decision afresh by the following order:- "The High Court has not looked into the allegations in the case regarding tampering with seal of the totaliser of the dispensing unit for making illegal gains at the cost of unsuspecting members of public mentioned in the order of termination, which fact is also borne out by the stock variation detected at Retail Outlet in all the four products. The violation of the terms and conditions of the Dealership Agreement and other allegations have also not been looked into. What is the penalty prescribed for when the seal is found broken has not been looked into before holding penalty to be disproportionate. Sending an information to weight and measure authority also does not inspire confidence. The High Court should have looked into all these facts in proper prospective. There has to be a proper explanation to show cause notice. What is reply to show cause notice has been looked into by the High Court. We set aside the order and request the High Court to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. No final comment on merits of the case has been made by us. The appeal is allowed and the case is remitted back to the High Court for deciding the case afresh. Status-quo existing as on today regarding running of the petrol pump shall be maintained. No costs."
(3.) We have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Sri Saurabh Basu and Sri Prakash Padia for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and from a perusal of the record we find that the Sales Officer of the Corporation conducted an inspection on 16th November, 2006 and submitted a report, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. On the strength of the said report, a show cause notice was issued on the same day to the petitioner, copy whereof is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted a reply to the same which is Annexure No. 5 and is dated 21st November, 2006. On a perusal of the said explanation, the impugned order dated 20th June, 2007 was passed whereby the corporation took a decision to cancel the retail outlet dealership of the petitioner. It is the said impugned order which has been made subject matter of challenge in which the previous proceedings as indicated above have concluded after remittance from the Supreme Court.;