- (1.) The petitioner, who is a proprietor of M/s Pal Singh Filling Station and dealer of petroleum products, is aggrieved at the cancellation of licence on the application of Para 5.1.2 and 8.2 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines. The petitioner's grievance is that the guidelines are vague and do not admit of a proper examination of a complaint where there is an issue of alleged short delivery of products and where a "sealing wire" is broken. According to the petitioner, he has lost out his dealership which he held for more than 25 years in having been issued with the letter of intent originally on 27.02.1985 and having continued the business without any complaint on an untenable ground. The examination of the provisions and the facts giving rise to the cancellation would therefore require to be seen.
(2.) After the letter of intent was issued on 27.02.1985, the petrol pump was started for a period of 15 years on 25.03.1987 and renewed again w.e.f. 25.03.2002. During all this period, there has been not a single incident of any tampering with the meter or illegal actions after all checking and inspections. On 09.07.2013, one Mr. Achint Bhavasar, Deputy Manager Engineering of the office of the rd respondent inspected the outlet and prepared a report and recorded the fact that there were no error noticed. The Inspector returned again, he opened the locked portion of three dispensing units to check the seals affixed on the inner part of the totaliser and assembly units. The seals were intact but when Mr. Bhavasar pulled it with considerable force, it broke. After breaking the wire, Mr. Bhavasar telephonically contacted the Sales Officer and Assistant Territory Manager. The Sales Officer prepared a report that the totaliser seal on the MS Unit had been found broken. He also observed that the diesel (HSD) assembly seals were very loose and they have to be redone. A second report was prepared therefore on the same day, namely, on 09.07.2013, where the following was recorded:- "(1) W&M Z line MS (Sr. No.KRLNT2986) totalizer seal found broken. (2) HSD units assembly seals (W&M) very loose." No variation of stocks of MS or HSD in the underground tanks were found. On the other hand, the daily sale of petrol was only about 300 litres and there was not even a scope for any manipulation. Upon using a 5 litre measuring check on 09.07.2013, the Sales Officer did not find any shortage of petroleum products. The Sales Officer also took sample of petrol and diesel for sending them to BPCL Laboratory for checking and testing. Normally, the lab tests would indicate change in density and if there was adulteration, the sample would fail. No such report was also made against the petitioner. On the basis of the inspection carried out on 09.07.2013, an order suspending the sales from petrol (MS) dispensing unit was ordered. A notice was issued on 25.07.2013 pointing out to the following irregularities:- "1. Dispensing Unit bearing Srl. No.KRLNT 2986 Motor Spirit (MS) was found with Weights & Measures Z Line MS Totalizer seal broken. 2. It was further observed by Mr. Sanjeev Daukia that both HSD units assembly seals (W&M) were very loose. 3. The above observations prima facie establishes that tampering/interference has been made with the working parts of the pump or other equipments provided by the company. 4. As per the company policy/guidelines sales from the concerned unit was suspended and the said DU was sealed."
(3.) The petitioner had replied contending that there was no defect but the impugned order was passed on 13.03.2014 discarding even the recommendations of the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Ambala that no one had deliberately broken the seals and that the seals were corroded, as no cover, like canopy, was used for the protection of the dispensing pump units. The order merely reproduced the clauses which are impugned in the writ petition and holding that the dealership was, therefore, cancelled irrespective of the fact whether any short supply was noticed or not. The narration of facts would reveal that there was nothing seriously amiss and if the cancelation was taking place, it was only on pure reliance on the recitals in the guidelines stipulated. The relevant clauses which are put in challenge are reproduced:- "5.1.2 Short Delivery of Products a) With Weights & Measures Department Seals intact Sales through the concerned dispensing unit to be suspended forthwith and recalibration and restamping to be done before recommencement of sales. b) With Weights & Measures department Seals tampered W&M department seals are put on Metering unit and Totaliser unit with the help of a sealing wire and a lead seal which is embossed by W&M inspector. The seal would be deemed tampered in the following cases also: 1. Seal itself is missing 2. Different seal has been put other than embossed by W& M inspector. 3. Sealing wire is broken and not in one piece. In addition other situations which can lead to manipulation of delivery/quantity/totaliser may also be treated as tampering. Penal action to be taken even if the delivery is found to be correct or excess. In case of this irregularity sales from the concerned dispensing unit to be suspended, DU sealed. Samples to be drawn of all the products and sent to lab for testing." "8.2 Critical Irregularities: The following irregularities are classified as critical irregularities: i. Adulteration of MS/HSD (5.1.1) ii. Seals of the medtering unit found tampered in the dispensing pumps (5.1.2(b)) iii. Totalizer seal of dispensing unit tampered or deliberately making the totalizer non functional or not reporting to the company if totalizer is not working (5.1.3 read with 5.1.2) iv. Additional/Unauthorized fittings and gears inside the dispensing units/tampering with dispensing units (5.1.4) v. Unauthorized storage facilities (5.1.5) vi. Unauthorized purchase/sales of products (5.1.6) vii. Tank lorry carrying unauthorized product found under decantation at the RO (5.1.7)." The impugned order reads that in the reply given to the show cause notice, the petitioner had not originally stated that the inspecting team itself was responsible for breakage of the wire and, therefore, the action attributed to the respondents was an afterthought. I would find that it was lapse on the part of the petitioner in not clearly setting out that the respondents' inspection staff itself was responsible for the breakage of the sealing wire, but I will not take this to be a case of building up a new version later by virtue of the fact that on the same day on 09.07.2013, there are two reports. The first report in Annexure P7 clearly states that there were no defects found and it was duly inspected. It was only a subsequent report drawn on the same day that registered the fact of totalizer seal as having been broken and the HSD unit seals being very loose. Evidently, there was nothing missing at the first inspection. If the breakage of the seal was said to have been caused in a particular manner, it ought to have been examined in the context of the fact that the dispensing units had no cover as shelter over them, as the photographs supplied themselves show and the iron/steel equipments were exposed to water and air. The report of the Assistant Controller, Metrology was, therefore, surely relevant. If a party, therefore, pleads for the circumstances of how the seal was found broken, there needed to be an appraisal of whether it was deliberately done or not.;