CWP 10254-07 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10254of 2007 Date of decision 21 .1 .2008 M/s Punjab Oil Store .. petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.C.Kapoor, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 M.M.Kumar, J. The petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 5.2.2007 ( Annexure P.8) and order dated 11.5.2007 (Annexure P.9) passed by the Indian Oil Corporation (for brevity 'the Corporation') and Executive Director of the Corporation, respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The Corporation vide order dated 5.2.2007(Annexure P.8) has terminated the dealership agreement and declared that the petitioner would henceforth CWP 10254-07 2 ceased to be their dealer with immediate effect. The afore-mentioned order on appeal has been upheld by the Executive Director of the Corporation. According to the order dated 5.2.2007 ( Annexure P.8) it has been found that on 29.12.2006 the Vigilance Team of the Corporation observed flagrant violation in a surprise inspection of the petitioner Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO)/LDO as it has been found that the stock at the time of inspection at 11.00 AM was 1100 liters whereas the stock as per the register was found to be 7750 liters. The partner of the firm Shri Hoshiar Chand was present which as per the record has been found to be correct. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 2.1.2007 was issued asking explanation of the petitioner. The explanation was considered and the same was found to be unsatisfactory in regard to stock variation. The explanation that 1100 liters of SKO was kept in five drums of 220 liters each and 7750 liters kerosene was stored in tanker No. PJN 2999 parked on the road just opposite to the godown was found to be an after thought and untenable because no mention of any such tanker was made by the petitioner when he signed the inspection report on 29.12.2006 alongwith the inspecting team certifying the stock verification. Respondent no.1 has further pointed out that in any case the petitioner could not have stored SKO at any other place other than the licensed godown premises. Holding that it constituted a mal- practice/ irregularity under the provisions of Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005 (for brevity 'the Guidelines') the dealership has been terminated forthwith directing the petitioner to hand-over the stationery and other material belonging to the Corporation and settle the accounts. On appeal filed before respondent no.2, the order passed by respondent no.1 has been upheld and the Guidelines, 2005 have been found to be breached. CWP 10254-07 3 After hearing learned counsel and perusal of original record produced before us, we find that the findings recorded by the Vigilance Team of the Corporation does not call for any interference which apparently violates the Guidelines,2005. There are firm findings of fact and the version pleaded by the petitioner has been completely dis-believed. No interference would be warranted in the findings of fact. Once such findings have come on record then termination of dealership agreement in respect of the petitioner is wholly justified and the action is sustainable under the Guidelines. There is thus no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S.Mann) 21.1.2008 Judge okg