RATNAKASHYAP Vs. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dissatisfied with the order dtd. 25/6/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.2060/2019, the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that on 10/9/2014 an agreement was entered between appellant and respondent Corporation in respect of appointment of appellant as a 'dealer' for retail sale of petroleum products for a period of 15 years. Under the said agreement, the appellant was permitted to enter upon the premises owned by respondent Corporation and to use pumps, storage tanks, pipes, fittings and all other facilities erected and provided by respondent company at the said premises. On 1/2/2017 a joint inspection was conducted by the officers of respondent Corporation in presence of the employees of appellant engaged for operation of retail petroleum outlet and it was found that out of total 08 nozzles of dispensing units, 03 were delivering short supply beyond permissible limit and in 04 nozzles, 'K' Factor was not matching with the certificate issued by Weight & Measure Department after stamping. The Inspection Team also recorded many other irregularities like not maintaining register recording density, sale register incomplete, selling price stock & density of MS/HSD not displayed etc. Finding many irregularities/breaches in running of petrol pump by appellant, the respondent Corporation issued a show-cause notice to the appellant on 3/10/2018 calling upon her to explain within a period of 15 days as to why action should not be taken against her including termination of dealership. Appellant filed reply to show-cause notice and pleaded that on 26/12/2016 the Weight & Measure Inspector done stamping of machines and issued certificate regarding 'K Factor'. However, after few days due to some electronic defect in dispensing unit, three nozzles started delivering short/excess supply of motor spirit & high speed diesel. Said defect was immediately brought to the notice of the Weight & Measure Inspector vide letter dtd. 30/1/2017. Personal hearing was also afforded to appellant and on being dissatisfied with explanation given by appellant, the respondent Corporation terminated retail outlet dealership agreement dtd. 10/9/2014 vide letter dtd. 30/5/2019 and also took back possession of said premises from appellant.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved therewith, the appellant preferred a writ petition bearing No.2060/2019 before the High Court. Learned Single Judge after considering the pleadings made in writ petition as well as reply filed by respondent Corporation to the application for grant of interim relief and document annexed thereto, dismissed writ petition observing that agreement itself contains an arbitration clause.