S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) SEEKING quashing of order dated 02.08.2014, whereby the suspension of sales and supplies of petroleum products by the oral order dated 09.07.2014 has been affirmed/rectified, the present writ petition has been filed. A further order seeking a direction for lifting the suspension of the sales and supplies of petroleum products vide oral order dated 09.07.2014, has also been made in the writ petition.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, an agreement for a Dispensing Pump and Selling License Agreement (Dealership Agreement) was executed on 10.10.2013 granting, licence for sale and supply of petroleum products to the petitioner for 15 years. On 09.07.2014, an inspection was carried out at the petitioner's outlet and the sales and supplies of petroleum products from the retail petroleum outlet of the petitioner was suspended vide oral order dated 09.07.2014. Thereafter, a show -cause notice dated 02.08.2014 was issued to the petitioner by the Manager Territory (Retail) Ranchi who further ordered extension of suspension of sales and supplies of petroleum product from the retail outlet of the petitioner till further order and/or a final decision is taken by the company. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 13.08.2014 to the show -cause notice dated 02.08.2014 however, no order revoking the suspension of the sales and supplies from the retail outlet of the petitioner was passed. Though, suspension order was liable to be revoked on or after 25.07.2014, inspite of representation made by the petitioner, suspension order was not revoked and instead, notice dated 10.09.2014 was issued to the petitioner for a personal hearing on 17.09.2014. The petitioner accordingly, appeared and filed a reply however, no final decision has been taken by the respondent -Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. On 03.12.2014, notice was issued to the respondents which was accepted by the counsel for the respondents. The respondents were granted 10 days' time for filing counter -affidavit and the matter was posted for hearing on 16.12.2014 however, instead of filing counter -affidavit, the respondents filed I.A. No. 6496 of 2014 for referring the matter for arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement. It is stated that the dispute raised by the writ petitioner falls in the ambit of the memorandum of agreement executed between the parties. Since the dispute raised by the writ petitioner involves disputed question of fact and technical in nature, the Director (Marketing) or his nominee would be the most competent person to adjudicate the dispute raised by the petitioner. It is further stated that after the sales of petroleum product from the retail outlet of the petitioner was suspended on 09.07.2014, a show -cause notice was issued on 02.08.2014, which was replied by the petitioner and she was called for personal hearing. The hearing in the matter was concluded and a final decision is expected in due course.
(3.) A counter -affidavit has now been filed by the respondents taking a plea of availability of alternative remedy. It is stated that samples of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel were taken in presence of the husband of the dealer and those samples along with supply point sample and one HSD tank lorry retail outlet sample were sent to Budge Budge Laboratory for examination, where MS & HSD samples both failed. There was abnormal high stock variation in MS & HSD and dealer has failed to maintain density register for past 14 days and stock register for past 19 days. It is further stated that the provision under Clause 8.3 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines would be applicable only when the sample passes quality test. Whenever there is abnormal density or stock variation, the sales and supplies are liable to be suspended. In the present case, the respondent -company has taken action in terms of Clause 8.2(i) of the MDG Guidelines, 2012 and principles of natural justice has been followed by the respondent -company.;