IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9904 of 2008 1 Abdul Qaiyum @ Abdul Qayumme, son of late Md Suleman 2 Tufail Ahmad, son of Abdul Qaiyum @ Abdul Qayumme 3 Afzal Ahman, son of Abdul Qaiyum @ Abdul Qayumme 4 Anwar Ahman, son of Abdul Qaiyum @ Abdul Qayumme, All residents of P S - Laheriasarai, District - Darbhanga - Petitioners Versus 1 The Union of India through the Secretary, Oil & Natural Gas Commission at Secretariat, New Delhi, India 2 The Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Barauni Territory, N H - 31, P O - Papraur, Dist - Begusarai 3 The Deputy Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Sales (Retail), Muzaffarpur, Dist - Muzaffarpur 4 The Assistant Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, P Q Laboratory, Patna, Dist - Patna 5 The Divisional Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, office at - Exhibition Road, Patna -1 - Respondents *** For the petitioners : M/s P N Shahi & Dr Shashi S Kishore, Advocates For the Corporation : Mr Sanjay Singh, Advocate *** 8 28.04.2009 I A No 1851 of 2009 for substituting petitioner No 1 is allowed. Three sons are already on record. His widow has already appeared through vakalatnama. The petitioners are a retail dealer of petroleum products of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and have their retail outlet at Darbhanga. The retail outlet was inspected on 02nd February, 2008 by SGS Private Limited for adulteration. So far as motor spirit is concerned, which is stored in one tank and has one dispensing pump attached to it, nothing wrong was found. So far as high speed diesel is concerned, petitioners have got two storage tanks. Nozzle 1 of diesel is exclusively connected to the tank 1 whereas nozzle 2 of diesel is 2 connected to tanks 1 and 2 both. On testing nozzle sample, as noted above, motor spirit sample was found to be normal, HSD tank sample was also normal but allegedly tank 2 sample was found to be adulterated. It is on this ground, petitioners’ dealership has been cancelled. Petitioners submit that tanks 1 and 2 of diesel are interconnected at nozzle 2. What is impugned is that the second HSD nozzle can effectively deliver diesel connected in both the tanks. With reference to the stock register and other inspection reports, it is submitted that tank 2 was virtually dry for over a month. Dispensing was done only through tank 1 by both the nozzle. That being the position, it remained unexplained as to how one nozzle tested positive, the other negative. The authorities have not considered this aspect of the matter, it appears. Being aggrieved by the order cancelling the dealership, petitioners have filed appeal which is pending. In my view, these facts are in dispute and, as such, for the present, appeal would be the appropriate remedy. The petitioners have filed an appeal to the Divisional Manager against the said order. Mr Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that that appeal may not be before the appropriate forum. Petitioners are required to file an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation who could exercise the appellate jurisdiction and look into petitioners’ grievance. Having considered the matter, in my view, petitioners should file an appeal against the order impugned before the Chairman of the Corporation. If such an appeal is filed, it will be open to the petitioners 3 to give all facts necessary in respect thereof and if it is filed within one month from today, it would be entertained by the Chairman or by such authority who is the competent authority, in case the Chairman is not the competent authority and decided within one month thereafter. In case petitioners seek opportunity of hearing, the appellate authority may consider the same. It is expected that the appellate authority would act as an independent appellate authority and would not mechanically reaffirm the order impugned. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)