Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is said that on the same day i.e. 2.6.2017, a joint inspection team comprising officers of the District Supply Office, Senior Inspector ( W & M), Hindustan Petroleum Officials and Engineers of equipments manufacturers inspected the Petrol Pump of the petitioner and after examining all the three dispensing units, prepared an inspection report, which reads as under:- 

"				fujh{k.k fVIi.kh
 
fnukad & 02-06-2017

izfr"Bku@iIi dk & es0 pkS/kjh fQfyax IokbUV KSK dkthiqj f=yksdiqj ckjkcadhA izksijkbVj@izca/kd dk uke& 'ke'kkn vyh pkS/kjh@f'kocju ;kno ¼izca/kd½ iEi ij LFkkfir fMLiasflax ;wfuV dh la[;k& 03 ftykf/kdkjh egksn;] ckjkcadh ds vkns'k la0 ¼91½ fnukad 03-05-2017 ds vuqikyu esa xfBr tkWp Vhe }kjk mi;qZDr iEi@izfr"Bku ij LFkkfir fMLisaflx ;wfuVks dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k tks fd fuEuor gS% fMLisaflx ;wfuV fooj.k fujh{k.k fooj.k According to the petitioner, bare perusal of the inspection report dated 2.6.2017 reveals that the Joint Inspection Team did not find any short selling of petroleum products. However, in the Midco and Gilbarco Dispensing Units, the pulsar card has been alleged to be containing an extra wire/soldering marks, but to the utter surprise and in sheer violation of clauses 5.1.4 and 8.5.2 of the MDG, the independent opinion of OEM was not obtained and the dealership was terminated solely on assumption and presumptions, which is highly arbitrary and shows the colourable exercise of powers.

It has been averred in the writ petition that after the inspection, a show cause notice dated 20.6.2017 was issued by the IOCL to the petitioner to show cause as to why the dealership agreement be not terminated on account of the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner to which the petitioner tendered his reply mentioning therein that the Inspection Team had not acted in consonance with the prevailing GOs and the MDG and no specific details of alleged Tampering or even independent opinion of W & M department and OEM as mandated in the clause 5.1.2.(b), 5.1.4 and 8.5.2 of the MDG regarding the alleged tampering were obtained. However, the Corporation being not satisfied with the reply, terminated the dealership agreement vide order dated 14.7.2017.

Further, the main reason for terminating the dealership of the petitioner has been stated that there was wide publicity in the media pertaining to incidents of short selling of fuel to the consumers. The termination order dated 14.7.2017 reveals that the IOCL has alleged that from the irregularities, only the petitioner was beneficiary but this ground is not substantiated by any documentary evidence as no case of short selling of fuel was found at the petitioner's retail outlet. It is pertinent to add that when the order of termination dated 14.7.2017 was passed, the report of OEMs were not available. The appellate authority in its impugned order had admitted that OEM Gilbarco in its report dated 10.2.2018 have clearly concluded that the pulsar card is working "Normal" and " there is no additional attachment found to alter the delivery". Similarly, the OEM Midco in its report dated 30.4.2018 has reported that the "pulsar card is as per the Midco standard design" and " no physical damage was found on any of the received item" and "no alien or external component/hardware found on any of the received item." In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, it was observed by the Appellate Authority that "this ground of termination is no more valid."

Had the aforesaid allegations as mentioned in the inspection report dated 02.06.2017 being corroborated by the Original Equipment Manufacturer as provided in Clause 5.1.2(b), 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 and 8.5.2 there could have been some substance in the allegations, for which the respondents could have proceeded against the petitioner, but in absence of any such finding or the report of the OEM, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were clearly pre-mature and lacking in substance. It is important to mention that during the pendency of the petitioner's Appeal, the reports of the OEM were received, which finds mentioned in the appellate order, wherein they have stated that the Pulsar Card is working "Normal" and "there is no additional attachment found to alter the delivery" and similarly the OEM and Midco in its report dated 30.04.2018 has concluded /remark that the "Pulsar Card is as per the Midco standard design" and "no physical damage was found on any of the received item"