LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-728

VENKATESWARAA AGENCIES Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN , LTD ; CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD ,CHENNAI RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE; CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD , TRICHY

Decided On March 13, 2015
VENKATESWARAA AGENCIES Appellant
V/S
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN , LTD ; CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD ,CHENNAI RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE; CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD , TRICHY RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by a dealer of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order, dated 03.12.2013, by which the dealership agreement, dated 25.11.2004, executed in favour of the petitioner was terminated.

(2.) The petitioner was granted a dealership by the respondent, Hindustan Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "respondent Corporation"). The petitioner is the owner of the site in which the Petrol Pump has been established and she has executed a lease deed in favour of the respondent Corporation in 2004 and the lease is for a period of 30 years. The dealership agreement between the petitioner and the respondent corporation was entered into on 25.11.2004, and the period of dealership is for 15 years. The petitioner's retail outlet is situated in Pondichery. The petitioner would state that they have purchased the dispensing pump from M/s.Larsen & Turbo Ltd, (L&T), as directed by the respondent Corporation and the pumps are regularly serviced by L&T. The petitioner would further state that during 2004, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent Corporation that the Pump display and the totalizer reading are not matching. It is stated that the respondent Corporation in turn lodged a complaint to L&T on 24.12.2004, and on the same day, the Service Engineer of L&T inspected the pump and replaced the totalizer and also issued a certificate. It is further submitted that periodically the dispensing pumps are inspected by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Weights and Measures Department, Puducherry and stamping has been done to ensure dispensing of correct amount of fuel. It is stated that the last of such stamping was done on 12.12.2006. The petitioner is said to have lodged a complaint with the second respondent regarding the malfunctioning of Z-Line Pump and the Service Engineer of L&T is said to have inspected the pump on 09.12.2006 and rectified the mistake and the meter unit was replaced, as it was found defective and a report dated 09.12.2006, was furnished.

(3.) On 12.12.2006, the officials of the respondent Corporation inspected the retail outlet and made certain observations regarding the type of nuts used in the Totalizer, which according to the petitioner is beyond the purview of the respondent Corporation, since it is maintained by L&T. The second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 29.01.2007, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action as deemed fit, including the termination of the Dealership Agreement cannot be taken as provided for under Clauses 15, 16, 18, 36, 42, 55(A) and 55(K) of the Dealership Agreement. The petitioner was granted seven days time to submit its reply. The show cause notice was based on an inspection, which was conducted by the Manager-Vigilance on 12.12.2006. The petitioner submitted its reply on 14.02.2007, explaining that the Weight and Measures seals were put on 12.12.2006 and it was done immediately after the Z-Line pump was serviced by L&T and the repairs and replacement were made by the Service Engineer, who attended the same on 09.12.2006. Regarding the Hexagonal nuts, the petitioner would state that it was fixed by L&T, during service. Regarding the other allegations that free air pump equipment was not available, it was stated that due to electricity problem, it was not functioning during inspection. As regards the Tank truck retention sample, the petitioner stated that the sample was taken on the previous night at 12.00 pm., and therefore, the same was not kept properly sealed when inspection was done on the next day, at about 8.00 am. After submitting their reply, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.21071 of 2007, to forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering with the running of the retail outlet and an order of interim stay was granted and the petitioner continued to run the retail outlet. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 05.03.2013, giving liberty to the respondent Corporation to finalise the show cause notice and pass orders and till such a decision is arrived at, the respondent Corporation were directed not to stop the supply of the Petroleum products to the petitioner's retail outlet. Pursuant thereto, an Enquiry Committee came to the petitioner's place of business and conducted an enquiry on 04.06.2013. Subsequently, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted by the third respondent on 08.08.2013. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed terminating the dealership of the retail outlets. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.