P LAXMIKANTH RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a dealer in products of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the 2nd respondent. An outlet was established by it at Dichpally of Nizamabad District on National Highway No.7. Dispensing unit is said to have been established about 50 years ago. An inspection was conducted on 24.11.2009 at 7 p.m. Based upon the observations of the inspection, a show cause notice dated 08.12.2009 was issued alleging that the HSD dispensing unit was delivering 140 ml. litre short, for every five litres. It is also mentioned that on further examination, the lever of the metering unit was found to have been tampered, by replacing a gear with 39 teeth, in the place of the one with 38 teeth.

(2.) THE petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the seal of the Vending unit was in tact, and that even according to the show cause notice, the respondents have opened the seal, after obtaining the permission of the authorities of the Legal Metrology Department and the Manufacturers. He contends that once the seal is found to be in tact, the dealer cannot be held responsible for any error, or defect as to measurement. He pointed out that the dealer has no control over the dispensing unit, and the Corporation and the Maintenance Agency are in complete control over the units. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Corporation terminated the dealership of the petitioner through proceedings dated 12.08.2010. THE same is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) SRI D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that even according to the notice issued by the respondents, the seal on the equipment was in tact and there was absolutely no basis for proceeding against the petitioner. He contends that the terms of agreement and other related documents are to the effect that under no circumstances, the petitioner shall touch or tamper with the equipment and it is not explained as to how the petitioner has access to the internal parts of the unit, even while the seal is in tact. It is urged that the writ petition is very much maintainable, since the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, arbitrariness, and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.