THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.29701 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was a dealer of M/s. Indo Barma Petroleum Co. Limited (IBP) and established a filling station at Morthad of Nizamabad District. The IBP had since merged with the Indian Oil Corporation, the respondent herein. A show cause notice, dated 17.08.2010, was issued by the respondents, alleging that during a surprise visit made on 21.07.2010, it was found that the totaliser seal of dispensing unit for High Speed Diesel was missing and the totaliser seal of another unit was found to be tampered with. The sales are said to have been suspended on the same day. By citing to the provisions of the Petroleum Act and the Dealership Agreement, the respondents required the petitioner to explain as to why the dealership be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted explanation on 24.08.2010. According to it, the missing of seal and the loosening of another was noticed on 19.07.2010 and immediately the matter was reported to the Authorities of the Legal Metrology Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner denied any involvement in the incident. It was further stated that the copy of the letter addressed to the Legal Metrology Department was not placed before the Authorities of the Company, when the check has taken place on 21.07.2010, as the Managing Partner was not at the station. Not satisfied with the explanation, the respondents cancelled the dealership agreement through proceedings dated 11.11.2010. Hence, this writ petition. Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is not at all liable for the condition of the seals on totalisers, and on noticing, some defect in them, the matter was immediately reported to the Legal Metrology Department. He contends that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the lapses, or defects in the seals. He further contends that the dealership was granted by M/s.IBP, whereas it is cancelled by the Indian Oil Corporation. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, on account of merger of both the companies, it is always competent for the respondents to initiate proceedings, and hence, the objection raised by the petitioner is untenable. He contends that the seals on totalisers are not put by the Legal Metrology Department and the seals do not get disturbed without human intervention. Learned counsel submits that, in case the petitioner found any defect in the seals, he ought to have reported the matter immediately to the concerned. The objection raised by the petitioner as to the competency of the respondents to initiate proceedings, cannot be entertained. It is not in dispute that M/s. IBP had since merged with the Indian Oil Corporation. Further, the petitioner is receiving supplies from the Indian Oil Corporation and but for the dealership with them, he would not have continued. The terms of agreement for running a petroleum outlet are almost common for all the petroleum companies. A dealer is, in fact, prohibited from causing any repairs, or to otherwise deal with the dispensing units. Periodical maintenance is undertaken by the manufacturers, as part of their agreement with the oil companies. The petitioner does not dispute that the seal on the totaliser of one dispensing unit was totally missing and the seal on the other unit was found to be tampered with. According to it, the condition was noticed on 19.07.2010. The first thing expected of him was to immediately report to the respondents, or to the agency, which undertakes periodical maintenance of the units. It did neither. It has chosen to report the matter to the Department of Legal Metrology, little realizing that the seal on totaliser is not put by the said department. Hardly the petitioner had any answer for the allegation made by the respondents. The argument that the penal action can be taken, if only the interference with the seals has resulted in short deliveries of product etc.; is equally untenable. Removal of a seal is a matter of concern for the company. It has initiated steps and cancelled dealership. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of a lesser degree may be imposed, is not within the scope of this Court. If the petitioner is so advised, he can make representation to the Higher Authorities. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is however, left open to the petitioner to make an appeal to the Higher Authorities in the Indian Oil Corporation for considering the feasibility of imposing the punishment of any other category. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22.03.2011. GJ