S.K. KANNIAH NAIDU & CO., REP. BY ITS PARTNER, PADINALLUR Vs. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for issuance of an Order by this Court in calling for the records in CH.TR.41.05 dated 10/10/12 and to quash the same. Further, it has sought for passing of an Order by this Court in directing the Respondents to extend and implement Dispensing Pump and Selling License (DSPL) Agreement dated 06/01/2011.

(2.) THE Petitioner is a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The Petitioner/Firm was carrying on Petroleum Dealership business at No. 264, G.N.T. Road, Redhills, Chennai for the past 65 years, having dealership with M/s. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited. The Partners of the Petitioners Firm and others went on a pilgrimage from 21/04/2012 and they came back to Chennai on 28/04/2012. Since there was some discrepancy made by Cashier of the outlet in the Key Register in the absence of the partner and the Manager of the outlet, they were in the process of closing the E -Register during which time they found that the totalizer for HSD in one of the forms was faulty and showed variation. They were about to intimate the same to the Engineering Section of the Respondent. But to the shock and surprise, the official of the Respondent made a surprise joint inspection at the Petrol Bunk on the day of suspending the sales, the Petrol Bank had 8,060 litres of High Speed Diesel and 5,747 litres of Petrol in the tank. Apart from that, Diesel measuring 12 Kilolitres had arrived in their vehicle which was about to be offloaded. All the sales made by the Petitioners Firm were properly billed. In pursuance of the inspection made by the official of the Respondent, a Show Cause Notice dated 05/05/2012 was issued to the Petitioner alleging the following deviations and explanation were sought for within 7 days thereon. They are:

(3.) SOON after the receipt of Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner/Firm sent a reply on 14/05/2012 informing that the entire family was on a pilgrimage tour during the time of inspection and the absence of the Petitioner was the root cause for not maintaining the Register between 22/04/2012 and 27/04/2012. Further, they informed that there was a faulty Meter and due to the said reason which was beyond the control of the Petitioner/Firm, they made a request for considering the long standing relationship of 67 years and for favourable action.