THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1119 OF 2011 DATED:07-12-2011 Between: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17, Janshedji Tata Raod, Mumbai 400 020, rep., by its Managing Director and another … Appellants And M/s. Balaji Services Station, Partnership Firm, 5-3-60, NH-7 Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District – 503 111 rep., by its partner Ch. Bhasker … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1119 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 14-10- 2011 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20350 of 2010. 2. The respondent had entered into a dealership agreement with the appellant - company on 01-02-1976 for retail sale and supply of petrol, diesel, motor oil and other petroleum products to be supplied by the appellant - company. 3. The infrastructure equipment was required to be provided by the respondent as per the directions and instructions of the appellant - company. The dispensing machinery was required to be installed by the appellant - company at its own expense. 4. On 08-10-2009, the District Inspector of Legal Metrology inspected the respondent’s outlet and certiﬁed that it was working in a proper condition. Thereafter he sealed the equipment. On the same day, the authorized agent of the appellant – company also visited the outlet of the respondent for undertaking maintenance work and submitted his report that the units were in a sealed condition and working properly. 5. On 19-10-2009, the Field Oﬃcer of the appellant – company inspected the outlet and ﬁled his report conﬁrming that the seals on the units are intact and that the unit is in a good working condition. 6. On 24-11-2009, an inspection of the respondent’s premises was carried out and it was noticed that the gear in the dispensing machine had 39 teeth instead of the standard 38 teeth. On this basis, it was found that the unit was delivering to the customers 25 ml excess of petrol/diesel for every ﬁve litres. The dispensing unit of the respondent was then seized by the appellants. 7. On 08-12-2009, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent pointing out the irregularity. The respondent submitted a detailed explanation on 15-12-2009 in which it was speciﬁcally mentioned that at the time of inspection, the seals were found to be intact and they were opened after getting permission from the Weights and Measures Department and by the oﬃcials of the appellants. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the assertion regarding a spurious gear is false and an incorrect assertion was made by the appellants. It was also submitted that the pump sets are the property of the appellant - company and the appellants have been collecting appropriate charges for utilization on a per kilo basis regularly. 8. On 12-08-2010, appellant No.2 passed an order rejecting the contention of the respondent and terminating its dealership. The respondent preferred a writ petition which came to be allowed by the learned single judge by the order under appeal. 9. The learned single Judge noted, and in our opinion quite rightly, that there was nothing to show that the seals had been tampered with by the respondent. In fact, on inspections made on 08-09-2009 and 19-10-2009, it was found that the seals were intact. That being the position, there was no question of the respondent having tampered with the seals to put a gear having additional tooth. 10. The learned single Judge also noted, again in our opinion quite rightly, that even if the respondent had tampered with the unit, the tampering would not be to the detriment of the respondent since by the tampering alleged to have been committed, 25 ml in excess of petrol or diesel would be supplied for every ﬁve litres given to the purchaser. No businessman would like to tamper with the seals to his detriment and for the purposes of causing a loss to him. 11. Before us, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the principles of natural justice were complied with and there was no error in the order passed by appellant No.2 on 12-08-2010 cancelling the dealership agreement. 12. Even if the principles of natural justice have been complied with, the basic fact regarding tampering of the seals by the respondent has not been shown to us by the learned counsel for the appellants. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel that despite the fact that there was no evidence that the seals have been tampered with, the dealership agreement could have been terminated by the appellants. 13. There is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. 14. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 07-12-2011 ks