VIPIN KUMAR AGARWAL S/O JAGDISH SARAN AGARWAL, R/O KICHHA RAILWAY STATION, KICHHA, TEHSIL KICHHA, DISTRICT UDHAM SINGH NAGAR, PROPRIETOR M/S KICHHA FUEL OIL DISTRIBUTORS, BAREILLY ROAD, KICHHA, TEHSIL KICHHA, DISTRICT UDHAM SINGH NAGAR Vs. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL), OFFICE BULK DEPOT, VILLAGE NOORPUR AVLA, TEHSIL AVLA, DISTRICT BAREILLY (U.P.), THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this appeal, the judgment and order dated 16.7.2011 rendered by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar has been assailed whereby the Original Suit No. 91/2006, instituted by the appellant, was dismissed for the major reliefs prayed for and it was partly decreed only for the relief (A) to the effect that the defendants were restrained from taking forcible possession in illegal manner on the plot and the petrol pump nay the constructions thereon and they were also asked to remain restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from such petroleum dispensing unit, but at the same time the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit refusing to pass any decree of declaration that the dealership termination order dated 7.4.2006 was illegal, void and ineffective. He also refused the prayer of declaratory injunction that the order dated 13.1.2006 issued by the respondents imposing the sanction on the licences of the plaintiff to sell the other petroleum products to be illegal and void.

(2.) The ill-fated day to the plaintiff came on 13.1.2006 when at around 6.30 PM, the team of the respondents suddenly arrived for the inspection of the petrol pump and the Deputy Manager of the respondent company measured the presence of the HSD in the underground tank by the dip rod method and found that there was a variation of 12272 litres in the book stock vis-a-vis the physical stock. As a consequence, the sale of HSD was suspended till further advice and samples were drawn. The closing stock at the time of suspension of sale was 22642 litres. This all has been reported in the relevant books under the handscript and the writing of the concerned officers.

(3.) So, a show-cause notice was issued on 24.1.2006 as to why the licence of the plaintiff be not terminated thenceforth for running the petrol pump. The plaintiff submitted his reply on 30.1.2006 and strived to show to his best by explaining that, in fact, there was no variation as reported, but the reality was that an entry of 12000 litres had been made in the concerned register by a Class III/Class IV employee who was employed at the unit on 12.1.2006 and this entry was made because the tanker no. UA06-8049 filled with 12000 litres of HSD had arrived on that day (12.1.2006) for dispensing such HSD in the underground tank and since this tanker while on way to the destination had met with some minor accident with a tractor trolley, hence there developed some snag in the valve box of the tanker and as a result thereof, the HSD present in the tanker could not be dispensed in the underground tank on the same day, i.e. on 12.1.2006, while the entry of the same was unwittingly made by the person employed there and this can transparently be noticed in the register concerned where the entry on 12.1.2006 showing the incoming of 12000 litres diesel in the underground tank had been made and thereafter only, the report of inspecting officers had been mentioned in their handscript.