M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing letter dated 19.11.2007 (P-10), whereby the Maintenance and handling contract entered into between the parties has been terminated and operation of IBP COCO (CC-1), Sector 5, HUDA, Panchkula (for brevity 'the retail outlet'), has been terminated. Consequently, the petitioner has been directed to remove its goods etc. within three days. It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Maintenance and Handling Contractor and to resume functioning of the retail outlet by restoring supply of petroleum products. The facts of the case are that IBP Company Limited was carrying on its business of storage and marketing of petroleum products through its retail outlets throughout the country. It was later on amalgamated in the Indian Oil Corporation-respondent No. 1 (for brevity, the respondent Corporation'). It is claimed that the petitioner, which is a proprietorship concern, helped the respondent Corporation in setting up of the retail outlet (P-2). On 23.11.2001, the petitioner was awarded the Maintenance and Handling Contract (for brevity, 'M&H contract agreement') of the retail outlet (P-1), which has been renewed from time to time.
(2.) ON 27.6.2007, a surprise inspection of the retail outlet was conducted jointly by the members of AAC and the respondent Corporation. Three samples of petroleum products were taken, out of which two were handed over to the petitioner as per the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (for brevity, 'MDG'). A letter dated 27.6.2007 was issued to the petitioner pointing out discrepancies in dispensing units, which showed that there were short/excess delivery in 5 Ltr. measure. The aforesaid details have been mentioned and the sales from the dispensing units as per metre reading have been suspended which are as under :- S.No. D.U.No. Short/excess Metre reading 1. MS 1 L&T 4299 MPD short by 100 ml. 945267 2. MS 3L&T 4299 MPD short by 30 ml. 1753902 3. HSD 2 L&T MPD short by 20 ml 661935 4. XP 1 L&T 4301 short by 30 ml 239035 5. HSD 4 L&T 4301 short by 20 ml 247660 6. HSD 1 MIDCO Excess by 30 ml. 2533046 The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why action be not taken as per MDG 2005 and under the provisions of the M&H contract agreement (P-2). On 29.6.2007, the petitioner sent a reply taking the stand that except for one dispensing unit i.e. MSDU-1 all units were in order and sale from that dispensing unit was stopped on the day of inspection (P-3). On 12.7.2007, the respondent Corporation suspended the sales and supplies of the retail outlet with immediate effect as the sample of Motor Spirit (MS) taken on 27.6.2007 failed in the RON test (P-4). On 17.7.2007 (P.5), the petitioner sent its reply that since the sample passed all clinical tests but failed in the RON test, therefore, a request was made to get the RON test done again in the presence of the petitioner out of the samples handed over to it by the joint inspection team. The petitioner also apprehended political sabotage, inasmuch as, the complaint by the complainant was made to the Chief Minister, Haryana, which is not the normal practice and normally complaints are made to the officials of the respondent Corporation (P-5). The RON test was conducted twice by the respondents on 9.7.2007 and 13.10.2007, wherein test results came as 78.3 and 81.5 respectively as against the specification requirement of minimum 88.0 [P-6 (Colly)]. It is apposite to notice that on 13.10.2007, the RON test was conducted in the presence of the petitioner. However, it has been claimed that instead of testing the samples, which were handed over to the petitioner, the sample which was with the Field Officer was re-tested. It has further been alleged that when the petitioner requested for testing the samples which were with him, it was told that there were no orders for testing his samples.
(3.) ON 16.10.2007, the petitioner made a request for supply of copies of both the test reports. Thereafter again a reminder was sent on 18.10.2007 (P-8). On 22.10.2007, the petitioner sent a representation to the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi, pointing out all the facts and various discrepancies committed in conducting inspection and testing in violation of the MDG (P-9).;