H IGH COURT O‘F‘CHHATTISGAR- : BILASPUR‘ Ahok Kr l s uma Jaiswa r Verss u Hindustan Petroleum Corporati n Limited i i i r i J i I i i j V os’é‘fOr pronouncement of Judgment on 7%:day of September 20 ' . Sd/ ) iv Satish K.Agnihotri ,_ , ' , udge Writ Petition (C) No. -1 034 oif 2009 P 09 _ J > ‘ ‘ i } HIGH COURTHOF CHHATTISGAR : BILASPUR ritnpetiti‘onr (C) No. 10340; .20 W 09 Aho umar Jalswal S/o aVIla Jauswal aged about 35 years R/o Ba C lony ‘ A’ ) mbikapur, Dist. Surguja (CG Vus ers inustan etroleum Corporatio imited;‘tnrouéh’the Senior Regional anager Hindusan etroleum orporation Ld 2nd Floor Madlna Manzu Medica College Roa aiur(CG) i i i '5 i dENT I, it i I i ‘u i (Wri peiion under rtice 22 o e Constitution o nia) Single Bench Hon ble Shri Satish K Agniori :-i£ Present l iht J Shri Sana' S; ‘A‘gawal, Counsel‘for the petitioner. Shri P.S. os consel or the respondent J U D G M E N T g (Passed on this 7 day of Septemer, 20 eard learned counsel for the parti H es Theipetiioner, by is petition‘ sees a writ ofcertiorari/mandamus t t th k g o qs p g t“ y 7 uah the termination of dealershi areement dated 7 Ma, 200 ide‘ order dated 2n Februar, 29 (Annexure‘ — P/1 Th i bf, pjd by t t e; facts, n rie as roecte he peitioner, are that the eitioner is running a etol um in the name_& stye of Ms m S pt pr pp l / O ai ' Fues, as a dealer of resonent Cororaon 0 ht t r ti t th it by November, 2008 the real ouletrof e petioner was inspected he offICIal of M/s SGS lndia Private Limited for shoit “SGS") a t ( nd, ubmitted its reort nnexure — saing tha “ero tank s p (A P/2) by tt t Ptl Is dd l th DIP l t b k, he r rie for ast one mon. coud no e taen as the key of t ank was n avalae. milarl s no avaable to Check, so t ot ibl Siy DSP i t il w d! e checked only nozzle in tank No.2 of diesel. Pink result foun i ék K Rms nk PETITIONER Hd P n L M t P' C l d Rp n ‘ t tt Al 6 f th f Id jy Khy, u f . , b 09) v d y 00 ’ ’). l pd, pti. n te 16h w ul rt _‘i_ t tt nr ) nen Cra c t pner a e on he 2‘ be a m The ptltloner on the sald date appeared befoe the respond Corpotion at 3 10 p m and by leter daed 22'“ Novemer 2008 ~ e r ent (Annexure 7—, P/5) he ifoedthatdue non-availabilityco prti h cl o rac deo ithi ti. t t ve ‘ i a e up n te o o t r t e t rl tt lag e norm h orpon he pen l o e m cemer, 008 Annu 7). n e e in r o e iinr rt, ls o spn or a t fl SG _ ker s odcte T e m 200 d nexe afte h pu o ate m f rry, n e ue b t delehip agreent of he petition Thus his tition. ars me t er. , t pe i ent ‘al learned ounse aing o e petitior is a t r as a witu I V i L 9 I affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner _ i i ‘ 2 5. From perusal of the record it appears that only after issuing show cause notice after receipt of reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice the petitioner was asked to appear for iomt inspection and in his presence and all other parties the inspection/test was conducted _ g, Thereafter the impugned order of termination of dealership A- 1 agreement has been passed ‘l’hus contention of the petitioner that ra t t b nrm to f traénSOaton e oud nt eh the pt wn me On he 24h ' Npembr 2008 (Annexureh P/6) a show cause notce Ws issud by the respondent Corporation to the pe|t|tloner calllng on the petitioer to show cause asto why appropria action rs nt t be , mtrated against he petltlone for aduleratmg th product a the etal oule Viotin th s of te Cratio T titioer submitted a;detailed repy n th 5 Deb 2 (exre P/ O th 20m Decmber 2008 L pesence f th pettoe, transpoer offICIa f the reondet Cporation nd he ofICIas of S the mar test wa cnud he report datd 20‘“ Deceber 8 is file as Anur P/9 Therer te imgned rder dd 2 ' Febua 2009 (Anexure P/1) has ben issd y terminating he t; . 7 ' ‘ ' ‘ T . i t \Ji t . , \ /a i T’ 'T” "r . ,V/ n’e‘tork‘problem we cod notalk tat/OMC‘ and SGS Oflcer;" I Thereafer Vlde Ieers dated 17th Novemb r 2008 (Anexue — P/3 & P/4 the respodt orpotion direted he etitio to appear before the Mandxr Hsed Dpot t 13 Novemr 2008 at 11 00 2 ¢ i t T§he man contion of ShriAgraw, cl apper fr th ne tht he impugned orde h been pssed hot i ) ! » tg e l hei‘impuned order has been passed without affrding ful d d d e rejected n .Vlew-of the decision rendered by this Court in Mls‘anr §ash -, Service Station vs. Hindustan P troleum Cororatio Liriiiied & Anotheri,‘ today on the 7m September, 2009,»th’is wri petiti1on deserves to be and Is accordingiy dismissed or te reason ‘oppoirtumty of hearing to the petltloner Is mlsplace an notice to b i made therein No order asto costs A copy of the order passed in Mls Chandra Prakash Sewic Station sura) be placed in the record of this (p case i i i i Sd/— ‘ n ‘: , 4 vtaatlshK Agmhot l Chda' ’ Prak§ pn i ‘ t f h s ' e