1 wp-2890.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2890 OF 2009 M/s B.P. Jain, Bharat Petroleum Dealers and others. Petitioners. versus Union of India and others. Respondents -------- Shri R.R. Mantri, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri S.D. Kulkarnbi, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Shri S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for Respondent No.3. -------- Coram: Naresh H. Patil & A. H. Joshi, JJ. Date : 2nd September 2011. PER COURT 01. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 02. The petitioners were appointed as dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation, to run a petrol pump. 3. The petitioners were issued a show-cause notice by the Respondent-Corporation, on 30.8.2007. Reply to the notice was filed by the petitioner on 16.9.2007, which is at Exhibit G to the petition. 4. According to the Respondent-Corporation, it found following irregularities during inspection of Retail Outlet allotted to the Petitioners. 2 wp-2890.09 (1) Upon two delivery tests of Dispensing unit No.OE 317 Model 981C on product-HSD, when taken on flash mode 55555 given short delivery of 120 ML per 5 litre measure. (2) The ERA (Electronic Register Assembly) of the said unit is sealed in presence of QCC team and your available representative and the same was sent to QEM M/s Midco for testing. 3. OEM informed and confirmed that micro-controller chip hardware is not the original component as supplied by MIDCO with the dispensing unit. 5. One of the contentions of the Petitioners, is that the test report from M/s MIDCO was not served on the petitioners. 6. It is also the plea of the Petitioners that the fact that micro-controller chip was installed in the machine, which allegedly was tampered by the petitioners, was not informed to the petitioners. The alternate remedy pleaded, if any, is not efficacious now, in view of the fact that the petition was pending admission hearing since the year 2009. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court, on 13.1.2010 in Writ Petition No. 37175 of 1999 and other companion Writ Petitions. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No.104 of 2009 (M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. M/s Super Highway Services and anr.) delivered on 19.2.2010, a simple copy of which is produced on record. The learned 3 wp-2890.09 Counsel for the petitioners, relied on observations particularly in para 17 of the judgment in the case of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. M/s Super Highway Services and anr. 8. Shri S. D. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2- Corporation, submits that in the light of show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Corporation, supply of petroleum product to the petitioners was stopped in the year 2007 itself, and after considering the reply filed by the petitioners to the show cause notice, the Respondent-Corporation had terminated dealership of the petitioners, by communication dated 7.9.2009. The learned Counsel further submits that a new dealer has already been appointed and the said dealer has started functioning. 9. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation submits that there is efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioners, which they did not avail. 10. It appears that the Corporation has considered reply filed by the petitioners to the show cause notice and also material placed before it. The contention of the Corporation is that, upon two delivery tests of Dispensing unit No.OE 317 Model 981C on product-HSD, when taken on flash mode 55555, it was found that there was short delivery of 120 ML per 5 litre and, therefore, after considering the entire 4 wp-2890.09 material, it had decided to terminate the dealership of the petitioners. 11. We have perused the show-cause notice, reply thereto and the impugned order of termination of the dealership of the petitioners. We have also gone through the copies of the judgments cited above by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so also the report filed by MIDCO which is placed on record (Exh. R-6). 12. After going through the documents placed before us, reply filed, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned order, in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (A. H. JOSHI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) pnd/wp-2890.09