THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.26869 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a Dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, the 1st respondent herein (for short ‘the Corporation’), and established a dispensing unit at Amarapuram Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, in the year 2005. It is stated that a letter of appreciation dated 20-05-2009 was issued by the respondents, in recognition of the unblemished services of the petitioner. The petitioner states that a private Bus hit one of the dispensing units in September, 2008, and on intimation given to the Corporation, necessary repairs were effected to it, through a Foreman, by name, Prakash. The officials of the Weights and Measures Department visited the petroleum outlet on 20-02-2009. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was levied, alleging that the seals on the dispensing units were not intact. The petitioner paid that amount, said to be under protest. One week thereafter, i.e. on 28-02-2009, the officials of the respondents visited the outlet. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, on 21-04-2009, alleging that the petitioner was running the dispensing units, without the seals put by the Weights and Measures Department. The petitioner submitted its explanation on 20-05-2009. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondents terminated the dealership agreement of the petitioner, through proceedings dated 01-12-2009. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, stating inter alia that the petitioner resorted to gross irregularity of running the unit without a seal, put by the Weights and Measures department. It is stated that the petitioner did not even dispute that the seals were absent, and that the fact that it has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards penalty is sufficient to prove the illegality. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the damage to the unit occurred on account of the fact that it was hit by a private Bus, and that it was put to use only after necessary repairs were caused by the officials of the Corporation. He further contends that the payment of compounding fee by the petitioner does not signify the acceptance of the allegation about the seals, and the amount was paid only to avoid further complication in the matter. Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., v. M/s Haji Abdul Rehman Haji Abdulla[1], he contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the irregularity committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He contends that the petitioner committed fraud on the consumers, and spoiled the reputation of the Corporation by selling the product, without the seals put by the Weights and Measures department. The main allegation made against the petitioner in the show cause notice is, that it has run the petroleum outlet without seals of Weights and Measures department, on the dispensing units. The petitioner did not dispute the allegation, as such. As a matter of fact, one week earlier to the inspection, caused by the respondents, the officials of the Weights and Measures department visited it, and have levied a sum of Rs.25,000/-, as compounding fee. The petitioner paid that amount. Though it pleads that the amount was paid under protest, there is nothing on record, to substantiate that. Assuming that there was no basis for the Weights and Measures department in levying the amount of Rs.25,000/-, as penalty, or compounding fee, the petitioner ought to have ensured that the alleged irregularity does not continue beyond that, and ought to have arranged for putting of proper seals. It is not as if the respondents have penalized the petitioner for any lapse referable to the period anterior to the date on which, the officials of the Weights and Measures department inspected and levied the penalty. Even after paying the huge sum, the petitioner continued to run the outlet, without proper seals, and this was noticed by the respondents, who visited one week after the penalty was paid. In fact, there was hardly any plausible explanation from the petitioner, in this context. The seals are put by the Weights and Measures department, after standardizing the outflow from the nasal. The absence of the seal would only lead to a presumption, that the product was being sold without proper measurement. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., v. M/s Haji Abdul Rehman Haji Abdulla (supra), the facts are totally different. In that case, the seals of the dispensing units were found to be intact, but short delivery of the product was noticed. In the instant case, admittedly, the seals were absent, totally. There was a serious irregularity on the part of the petitioner in running the unit without seals. Hence, no exception can be taken from the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.18-02-2010. KO [1] 2009 (5) ALT 762 (D.B.)