Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. She further argues that the joint inspection committee having been constituted in pursuance of the Government Order dated 02.05.2017 and not under the provisions of MDG, mandates procedure under clause 8.7 of the MDG to be followed before taking any action against the petitioner. Clause 8.7 provides that in cases where inspection has been conducted by authorities other than the Oil Companies, action against erring Retail Outlets will only be taken when malpractice or irregularity is "established by such authorities" and any action taken would be "on receipt of advice from such authority". However, in the case of the petitioner, despite a Final Report having been submitted by the Investigating Officer and accepted by the learned Magistrate, for some unfathomable reason, the Respondent Corporation in a hurry to assume the charge of the investigation has taken punitive action against the petitioner in blatant violation of clause 8.7 of the MDG.

vii. Writ-C No.29859 of 2017 (Savitri Devi and others vs. Union of India and four others).
viii. Writ-C No.16611 of 2021; (S.J. Lal Filling Station Indian Oil Retail Outlet and Another vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another).

31. In the light of the said submissions, it is argued that the writ petition is bound to be dismissed and should be accordingly dismissed.

32. Before adverting to the arguments raised at the bar, it is essential to notice that the contract in between the parties was executed which provided for applicability of the provisions of Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) affected w.e.f. 08.01.2013 as amended on 03.08.2018, the same are also relied upon by the petitioner and has been filed as Annexure no.4. In the counter affidavit, there is no pleading that the said MDG dated 08.01.2013 amended on 03.08.2018 is not applicable. Specific assertions to that effect is made by the petitioner in para 10 of the writ petition and in para 30 of the counter affidavit, it has been recorded that the said paragraph needs no reply.

35. In terms of MDG Corporation is authorised to take action, which is triggered in two manners, the first being the action taken by the State Government when they notice malpractice or irregularity, based upon the receipt of the advice from such authority in terms of the prescription under the MDG action can be taken. The other manner in which the proceedings can be initiated, is by the Corporation itself, when malpractice or irregularity are brought to its notice.

36. In the present case, although the State Government had conducted the first proceedings and had noticed the malpractice or irregularity, however the action in the present case against the petitioner has been taken by the Corporation, based upon the materials available with them in terms of the provisions contained in para 5.1.4 of the MDG, thus to that extent the first submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the constitution of the Committee, which had done the inspection at the first instance, was not properly constituted as prescribed under the Government Order, merits rejection and is accordingly rejected.

43. The appellate order records the submission and was decided by Sri Vigyan Kumar, the Executive Director of the Corporation as an Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal for the following reasons:

A. From the above discussions, it is clear that the instant case pertains to the irregularities mentioned in Cl. 5.1.4 of the MDG and that the saíd irregularities stand established by the OEMs as reflected in their reports. No new fact pertaining to the two reports of the two OEMs has been produced by the Appellant-Dealer. No doubt an RO dealer is the custodian of equipments including DUs provided by the Corporation and any tampering found in DU is RO dealers' responsibility and no one other than the dealer is benefited with the tampering of the same. Infact, the general public stands to loose and is cheated because of the said tampering, leading to loss of goodwill of the Respondent Corporation. Tampering with DU is à critical irregularity defined in MDG 2012. If any kind of tampering is observed in any DU then action needs to be taken as per dealership agreement as well MDG 2012 irrespective of the make and model of the DU.