M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) PETITIONER M/s. Suneet Services proprietor of firm is a dealer of petroleum products of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. By Agreement dated 20.2.1995 firm was granted a licence to deal in petroleum products for a period of 15 years.
(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that on 16.9.2002, the representative of the respondent company came to the premises of the petitioner and took samples for checking. Sample of tank No. 2 filled up with Motor Spirit was also tested. Vide letter dated 19.10.2002 written by the concerned respondent, petitioner was supplied with a copy of the inspection report stating therein that the samples found in tank No. 2 failed to meet the specification. Petitioner was called upon the explain reasons for failure of samples. Petitioner submitted its explanation, thereafter; impugned order was issued suspending sales and supply of all products for 30 days from the retail outlet of the petitioner. Besides that a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - was also imposed and over and above petitioner was directed to remove underground tank and sent it to Haldia at the cost of the petitioner. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of any method available to the petitioner to check samples which is being delivered to the petitioner firm, the impugned order could not have been passed by the respondents. Learned counsel drawn my attention to the report and submitted that no discrepancy was found inasmuch as specification were within the limit except Research Octane Number.
(3.) MR . M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation mainly contended that right and liability of the parties are governed by the agreement and the impugned order was issued on account of violation of terms of the agreement by the petitioner. The question whether petitioner in fact violated the terms of the agreement is a disputed question of fact, which is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.;