M/S Allied Motors Ltd vs M/S Bharat Petroleum Corp.Ltd

4. According to the appellant, it had been operating the petrol pump for the last 30 years and during this period it was given 10 awards from time to time declaring its dealership as the best petrol pump in the entire State of NCT of Delhi. On a number of occasions, samples of the appellant were tested by the respondent-Corporation and on each occasion its samples were found to be as per the specifications.

7. It may be pertinent to mention that in the morning of 15th May, 2000, an unauthorized police officer accompanied by the 3 officials of the respondent conducted a raid at the appellant's petrol pump. According to the appellant, the raid was illegal as an unauthorized police officer could not conduct a search and seize the samples of the appellant.

11. The appellant urged that in the present case, samples were allegedly taken from 6 sources. Therefore, the respondent Corporation as per the provision should have taken 36 samples (6 samples from each of the source) and handed over 12 samples (2 from each of the 6 sources) to the appellant, being the dealer, under acknowledgement. The respondent Corporation however, neither took 36 samples, nor did it hand over the prescribed number of 12 samples to the appellant. This is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in Writ Petition (C) No.7382 of 2001 placed on record. It is clearly stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation that it is pertinent to state that two samples from each of the tanks containing adulterated products were drawn by the answering respondent in the presence of the police officials of the crime branch and the representative of the appellant as well.

30. The appellant also asserted that the termination was mala fide is further strengthened by the fact of an internal email of the respondent dated 3 days after the raid on May 18, 2000 stating that "the samples were taken as complaint samples but the comments on the test result were given due to reasons explained to you over the phone."

a. Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 15 days along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- in the first instance.

b. Suspension of sales and supplies for 30 days along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- in the second instance.

43. According to the respondent, the report submitted by the IIP, Dehradun is sacrosanct. The said sample was sent much after the incident of adulteration and the same is not in accordance with the MS/HSD Control October, 1998 issued by the Government of India.

44. In the rejoinder affidavit, the appellant reiterated its submissions mentioned in the petition and denied the allegations levelled in the counter affidavit.

50. In the above case, the Court came to the conclusion that the dealership was terminated on irrelevant and non-existent cause. The Court while allowing the appeal quashed and set aside the Corporation's order terminating dealership of the appellants.

60. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes imperative in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the termination order of the dealership. We, accordingly, quash the same.

Consequently, we direct the respondent-Corporation to handover the possession of the petrol pump and restore the dealership of petrol pump to the appellant within three months from the date of this judgment.

61. The appeal is consequently allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) to be paid by the respondent Corporation to the appellant within four weeks from today.

December 16, 2011