Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short, 'IOCL') having its Filling Station at Deedwana Road, Jayal, District Nagaur, authorized to carry on business of retail sale of petroleum products, viz., Petrol/HSD/Motor Oil/Grease etc., has laid this writ petition challenging Retail Outlet Analysis and Inspection Report dated 24th August 1998 (Annex. P/5) and order dated 15th of September 1998 (Annex. P/8), whereby its sales and supply of all products is suspended for 30 days with fine/penalty worth Rs. 1,10,000/ - under three heads; viz., stock variation, tempering of totalizer seals and discourteous behavior/refusal to sign Inspection Report and sign labels. The facts, necessary for the purpose of this writ petition, are that offer for the dealership of OICL was furnished to the petitioner on 2nd June 1973 and thereafter agreement was signed between the parties. The retail outlet started w.e.f. 31st March 1976 with the installation of the entire infrastructure by the company including tank, pump etc. For the requisite infrastructure, obligation on the petitioner was to pay monthly rent but its maintenance was to be carried out by the company. In the event of leakage in the petroleum products, Fitter/Chargeman was authorized to rectify the defects and if it is reported that there is a major leakage, Fitter/Chargeman was authorized to advice the dealer to suspend the sales. It is also averred in the writ petition that in the event of leakage in the tank, dealer can report to the company about suspected loss of products. Petitioner has very specifically averred that provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 (for short, 'Act of 1976') and Petroleum Act 1934 (for short, 'Act of 1934') would apply to the dealer. As per version of the petitioner, record of stock of its retail outlet was regularly maintained by it. In the month of July 1998, petitioner addressed a letter to the Deputy Manager, IOCL apprehending leakage in the tank by alleging that there is variation in the stock to the extent of 1050 ltr. petrol and a letter to this effect was addressed on 30th July. Alleging ulterior motive against respondents No. 3 & 4, the petitioner has averred that they were harboring some grievances against the petitioner and therefore a false Inspection Report was submitted by them on 24th August 1998 wherein some defects were pointed out. In the Inspection Report, precisely, two defects were pointed out, viz., abnormal shortage in MS as well as HSD stocks and discourteous behavior during inspection by the petitioner/his representative. Pointing out many discrepancies in the Inspection Report, petitioner has submitted in the writ petition that variation in stock was due to leakage in the tank and allegation about discourteous behavior is false and fabricated. Be that as it may, pursuant to the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25th August 1998, wherein precisely three discrepancies were pointed out against the petitioner, which are as under: 1. Abnormal shortages were observed in MS as well as HSD stocks.
(2.) THE totalizers seals in respect of one MS DU were observed to have been changed as their serial numbers were not tallying with records. Your authorized representative refused to sign on the inspection report as well as the sample labels. 2. The show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 2nd of September 1998. The complete text of reply in vernacular is reproduced as under: 3. After receipt of the reply, the third respondent passed the impugned order. The order impugned is assailed by the petitioner precisely on the ground that it has been passed mechanically without application of mind and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has alleged that it was an ex -parte order and allegation of tempering seal is incorporated without any basis inasmuch as the same did not find place in the Inspection Report. To assail the impugned order, petitioner has also taken shelter of Section 3 of the Act of 1976 as well as Act of 1934 and violation of Article 14 & 19 of the Constitution.
(3.) ON behalf of respondents, reply to the writ petition is submitted. In the return, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection about availability of alternative remedy. While referring to Para 69 of the Dealership Agreement, respondents have averred in the reply that against the impugned action petitioner can avail the remedy of arbitration and as such writ petition cannot be entertained. It is also averred in the reply that case involves serious disputed questions of facts which are not required to be adjudicated in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. On merits, respondents have submitted that there was no leakage in the tank and this entire story is cooked up by the petitioner to camouflage his serious omissions and commissions.;