DivJ®iortBench G t^,^_ (D IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0.ft-o> OF 2009 WRFT APPEAL UNbER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTrSSARH HIGH COURT ^APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT. 2006 Appellant PaA-^o^ey-i 0, rl'^..%'/t?tK) ,tp,a'-'- t'^...'--' Respondents Ashok Kumar Jaiswal S/o Ramvilas Jaiswal, aged about 35 years, R/o Bank Colony, Nawapara, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C(5) Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2 Floor Madina Manzil, Medical College Road, Raipur {CG) s^s, \»Q y S. DHIREN&RA MISHRA & IJ,<l»iK! »*a & *^* JwlJAM^.5ArAR TT Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Hindustan Petroteum Coroor'ation Ltd. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 9 ca.c^eJi- SA'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge POST FOR JUt>»A6NTQy^O-11-^zOOi Sd/- ^A 11.2009 ^^B 4 HI6H COURT OF CHHATHS&ARH AT BILASPUR Writ AODM^ N0.2S6/2GG9 (Writ Appeal u/s 2 (1) of C©High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) 2006 Ashok Kumar Jaiswai, S/o Rarnyihs Jaiswal, aged about 35 years, R/o Bank Colony, !\iCtVvc^3Grs^ /^moiKupur^ USSTT, OuF^ujQ ^c&/ (Petitioner) Hinduston Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through the Senior Regional manager, Hindustan Petroleum Co-poration Ltd. 2 Floor Madino Manzii. Medical Coileae Road, Raipur (Cto) Mr. San iav Shyam Aqarwai, Advocate for the apoeilant. mr. P.5. Koshy, Advocate for the respondent. J U 6_6 M j on 1^.1 This writ dDpeal is directed aoainst the impuqned Judqment dated 07.09.2009 pflissed in W.P. (c) No.1034/09 whereby the writ petition filed bv the Detjtioner/ciooeilant herein aqainst the termination of deaiershiD aqreement dated 7.5.2007 by the respondent has been dismissed. '. Aqarwal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aDDeiioint oooeo.red on 20.12.2008 in Mandir-Hasaud Depot as directed by tiie resoondent CorDoration. Howeyer. no show cause notice was issued thereafter before terminatina his deaiershiD in violation of ttie Drincioies of natural justice. It wasalso arqued -itiat the dealershiD has been terminated on the bo.sis of inspections made on 16.11.2008 & 20.12.2008 and reoort submitted by M/s S65 India Private Limited (for short 'SGS ]. However, from perusai of both the reoorts it is evident that insDections have been carried out in absence of the TT sample and thus, termination of dppeiiants deajership in the absence of TT sampte is contr'ary to law. ^. '% .Je t l\ '.B! ^ '^E-^' / 'l:.'-^ T^S'y' A'y ..^y/ \& 3. On the other hand, Mr. Koshy. leamed counsel aDDearina for the r'esDOiident Corporation submits that 56S insDected the retail outlet of the appeiiant on 16.11.2008. On the basis of inspection report. a show cause notice was issued to the aDDeliant. However. after considerinq the reDiy to the show cause notice. the resoondent decided to give aiother opportunity tor testing of sampie at flAandir- Hasaud Deoot and accordinalv. on 20.12.2008. retail outlet samoles of HSt) were tested in the presence of the appellant ond m the Dresence of Sales Officer. Transoorter. 5<5S officials and Deoot Manaaer. The HSD samoles aaain faiied in marker test. At the time of first insDection. Tank Truck Retention Samoies were not availabie in the retail outlet and the same was mentioned in the inspection reoort acknowledaed by the aDDeliant's reDresentative. ResDonsibihty' to keep TT samples of the last supply is that of rhe dealer. Test was conducted in the Dresencs of the ciDDellant wid other concerned and ths test report bears the siqnature of ttie aDpelioint. The apDeilanr did not raise any objection in the writ oetition reoardinti non-availotbility of th®TT sampies. 4. After goino through the imDuqned order and after' considerinq the fact that on the obiection of the aDDellant in his reply to the show cause notice, a ioint inspection/test was conducted in the presence of the appeilant and the sampies coiiected from the retaii outlet of the aDDeltant agajn failed in the marker test and thereafter oniy the dealership has been terminated by the respondent Corporation, we tind no illeaalitv or infirmitv in the order imouqned warrantinq inTerterence. 5. In the result. 1+ie writ appeal has no substance, the same deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. ^,'u3i iUi l/ ~ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge SA'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge