Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) This proceeding arises out of a decision of termination of dealership of the petitioner no. 1 for operating a retail outlet from which motor spirit and high speed diesel are sold. The petitioner no. 2 is one of the partners of the petitioner no. 1, the latter being a firm engaged in the aforesaid business. The agreement of dealership for operating the outlet from Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata was executed on 31st July 2009, between the petitioner no.1 and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (the oil company). The petitioners, however, claim to have been engaged in similar business since the year 1957. The decision to terminate the dealership of the petitioners was communicated to the petitioner no.1 by a letter dated 8th November 2013 issued by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Kolkata Divisional Office of the oil company. A copy of this letter has been made Annexure 'P-13' to the writ petition. The substance of allegations against the petitioners is tampering with a totalizer unit, from which high speed diesel (HSD) is ordinarily dispensed.
(2.) The petitioners claim to have five dispensing units for their retail outlet two of them being computerized 'non-reversal' 'Digital Dispensing Totalizer Duo Units' of APLAB make and three dispensing totalizer units carrying the brand MIDCO. On 28th February 2013, an anti-adulteration cell of the oil company carried out inspection at the outlet of the petitioner no. 1 and found that in respect of the APLAB HSD totalizer/dispensing unit bearing model no. 22425, the embossment on one of the six seals was missing. That particular dispensing unit was thereafter sealed. I have been apprised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this particular dispensing unit ought to remain sealed with a series of six seals and cross-sealing by the official of the Weights and Measures Department, State Government in terms of Eighth Schedule of the Standards of Weights and Measures (General) Rules, 1987. So far as this particular dispensing unit is concerned, petitioners' case is that this was sealed by the Inspector of the Weights and Measures department of the State Government on 26th November 2012. After inspection, a notice to show-cause was issued upon the first petitioner by the Deputy Manager, Retail Sales, Kolkata - 1 of the oil company on 25th March 2013. This notice contains two allegations, on which the first petitioner's explanation was sought for. First, it was stated that the Totalizer unit of 'Aplab' make HSD Dispensing Unit Model : 22425 SR. No. sw-c-07-1470 A/B was found not sealed by the anti-adulteration cell of the oil company. It has been specified in that notice that the same led to tampering of the Totalizer Unit. The second allegation was of negative stock variation beyond permissible limit for Xtra premium (XP) to the extent of 427 litres, while the permissible limit for the same has been specified to be 55 litres in the negative. A copy of this notice has been made Annexure 'P5' to the writ petition.
(3.) The first petitioner gave its response to this notice denying the allegations. Explanation of the petitioners in relation to the missing embossment was an inadvertent error on the part of the official of the legal metrology department. The Officer of the oil company, this time being the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, found that explanation of the first petitioner was not satisfactory and a second notice was issued on 26th April 2013. This notice was captioned Show Cause Notice for Termination. It was observed in this notice that the concerned Inspector of Legal Metrology had confirmed that no error/mistake was committed by him while carrying out re-calibration/stamping of all the dispensing units at the retail outlet of the petitioners on 26th November 2012. In the same communication of 26th April 2013 it was pointed out that no explanation had been given by the first petitioner as regards stock variation of xtra premium . These two irregularities, as per the stand of the oil company reflected in the notice, constituted critical and Major , which rendered the dealership liable for termination. The first petitioner was called upon to explain as to why its retail outlet dealership ought not to be terminated under the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2012 in conjunction with the dealership agreement. This letter of 26th April 2013 has been made Annexure 'P7' to the writ petition. In its response to the notice of 25th March 2013 the petitioners indicated that no seal or any of its added components under the statute was found to be broken or tampered with. Only one seal was found not embossed with stamping. The first petitioner gave a further reply on 27th May 2013 broadly reiterating the same stand. In this reply the petitioner no. 1 elaborated on possible reason for stock variation, attributing it to excessive evaporation on account of prolonged retention of low stock. The possibility of pipeline leakage was also pointed out.;