Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.2 After allotment, the respondent issued Marketing Discipline Guidelines (for short 'MDG') which came into effect from 08.1.2013. The said guidelines would be applicable to the writ-applicant. The said guidelines is duly produced at Annexure-B. 2.3 On inspection having been carried out at the premises of the writ-applicant on 27.1.2022 and it was recorded certain deficiencies came to be recorded vide even dated communication. One of the irregularity found by the said so called inspection team and MPD/ATG was switched to offline/ manual mode without authorization from the respondent. The same being violative of MDG as per clause 5.1.16. The said communication dated 27.1.2022 is duly produced at Annexure- C. The writ-applicant answered to the said communication by NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15934/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/02/2024 undefined reply dated 2.2.2022. The said reply is duly produced at Annexure-D. 2.4 On 31.3.2022, the instructions of the MPD was removed by the respondents and the same was stated to have been tested at the lab of the manufacturer of the said unit and that there was normal functioning of all the components of the said unit.

(iii) no established reasons for positive stock variation in the underground tank as per inspection report dated 27.01.2023;

(iv) The meter jump in the MPD as claimed by writ-applicant as a reason for alleged gain observed, was rejected by OEM as per report dated 26.04.2022; (v) even after sales and supplies were suspended from 27.01.2022, sales to the tune of 13233 litres of HSD through MPD Sr. No. 12EB0346V and 23,888 litres of MS and 19,191 litres of HSD through MPD Sr. NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15934/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/02/2024 undefined No.12EB0345V happened till 26.03.2022 i.e. till date on which nozzles were sealed by field officer after getting market information that sales were still continuing from the Retail Outlet; (vi) even in the panchnama prepared on the date of serving termination notice, it is recorded that MS sales through bottles was happening at the site which is also video graphed indicates practices of unauthorized sales was continued till the time termination order was served at the RO. From the aforesaid, it can be concluded that writ-applicant the Petitioner was involved in malpractices, negligence and dereliction of duty, not only as per the MDG but also the DPSL, who today seeks sympathy before this Hon'ble Court. 5.10 It was submitted that none of submissions made by the writ-applicant inspire any confidence, in fact most of the oral arguments as were canvased during the hearings are nothing but off the cuff submissions for which there are no corelating pleadings in the Petition. The submission that the writ- applicant is a woman from a minority community cannot NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15934/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/02/2024 undefined entitle the Petitioner any special fundamental right under the Constitution, whereby despite the serious irregularities, she is allowed to continue with the DPSL and also be in illegal and unauthorized possession of the Retail Outlet. As far as the submission that the Retail Outlet was damaged due to cyclone Tauktae, it is submitted that said cyclone made landfall on 14.05.2021 whereas the inspection during which serious irregularities were found was conducted on 27.01.2022, i.e. after a period of over 8 months. Hence, the argument that the electronic gadgets at the Retail Outlet were non-functional or damaged due to the cyclone is nothing but a farce and a clear after though so as to get out of the clutches of malpractice. The contention that as per MDG in case of stock variation beyond permissible limit mandated density checking / sampling of the product is also an eye wash since on all occasions stock variation came to notice after the product had been sold and hence it was impossible to check the product density for comparison or carry out sampling and sales register maintained by writ-applicant itself indicates nil sales of HSD for last few NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15934/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/02/2024 undefined days before the date of inspection as no product can be pumped out. The contention in this regard is therefore totally ill-founded and misconceived. The contention regarding ATG (Automated Tank Gauge) being faulty is also completely false and a bare perusal of the hourly tank stock report (Annexure- T/7, pages 535 to 591) also clearly proves that there was no defect in the ATG. Also no complaint related to ATG fault was lodged and 8 complaints claimed by writ-applicant are not related to ATG. A deliberate attempt was made during the hearing to mislead the Hon'ble Court by showing entries on page 535/536 wherein stocks of MS and HSD showed alleged jumping. A scrutiny of the same clearly reveals that there was no alleged stock variation.

and the same has been acknowledged by the Appellant's representative.
5) The Appellant contends that the Respondent ought not have terminated the Dealership Agreement for any breaches of the said agreement when there are guidelines (MDG) issued by the Government of India which is binding on all Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs). In my considered view, the Appellant has misconstrued the applicability and relevance of the DPSL Agreement and the MDG. The relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent is one that of contractual nature governed by the contractual terms as agreed between the parties in the DPSL Agreement. As per the terms of the DPSL Agreement, the Respondent is well within its rights to terminate the Agreement for any breaches committed by the Appellant. Further, it is not the case of the Appellant that no irregularities as laid down in the MDG were committed. The Show cause notice dated 20.06.2022 and the Termination order dated 12.01.2023 bring out in detail and establish that irregularities under the MDG which were committed by the Appellant. Therefore, this contention of the Appellant is without any merits.

11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to sit NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15934/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/02/2024 undefined in Appeal over the findings recorded by a competent Appellate Authority to reappreciate the evidence for itself, or to correct an error of fact, the evidence on which it is based is satisfactory or sufficient. No interference is called for to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the respondent has terminated the DSPL considering the violation of the terms of the contract as referred above as per Chapter-8 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines and Dispensing Pump and Selling License as also as per Chapter-8 of the MDG and more particularly Clauses 8.2.VI of and 8.3.VIII of the MDG whereby the action prescribed is termination at first instance as well as Clauses 8.3.IV of and 8.3.VIII of the MDG whereby the writ- applicant's dealership ought to be terminated.