JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 to 6. Mr. H. Das, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent no. 7. 2. By filing the present writ petition, the order dated 20/09/2012 terminating the Petroleum retail outlet dealership of the writ petitioner as well as the order dated 22/05/2013 rejecting the appeal preferred by her has been put under challenge. 2.1 The brief facts of the case is that the writ petitioner herein was awarded with the dealership of a retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) at Silchar town vide order dated 27/11/1993, pursuant whereto, the petitioner had established a petrol pump in the name of M/s. Saradamani Filling Concern at Tarapur area of Silchar town, in the district of Cachar. As per the existing norms, there was a need to periodically recalibrate the Dispensing Unit (DU) of the petrol pump and since the existing certificate was due to expire on 30/11/2011, hence, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 28/11/2011 to the Legal Meteorological Department (W&M Department) informing the authorities that she would be travelling to Kolkata on 09/12/2011 in connection with her medical treatment and, therefore, the re-calibration exercise be carried out in her presence before the said date. The W & M Department visited the petrol pump of the petitioner on 10/12/2011 and thereafter, carried out the re-calibration exercise by opening the machine. On completion of the process, W & M Department sealed the D.U by following the usual process. The aforesaid exercise was carried out in presence of Mr. Gaurav Suman, who is the representative of the Original Equipment Service Engineer (OEM) which had supplied and installed the machinery. Duringthe re-calibration process exercise carried out by W & M Department on 10/12/2011, nothing unusual was found. However, on 13/12/2011, i.e. three days later, a team of the Anti- Adulteration Cell (AAC) of the IOCL had visited the petitioner’s petrol pump, opened the DU and thereafter had reportedly found an additional fitting in the MSDU. However, the AAC Unit had found that the seal put by the W & M Department was intact. However, on 13/12/2011, i.e. three days later, a team of the Anti- Adulteration Cell (AAC) of the IOCL had visited the petitioner’s petrol pump, opened the DU and thereafter had reportedly found an additional fitting in the MSDU. However, the AAC Unit had found that the seal put by the W & M Department was intact. On 13/12/2011, the IOCL authorities suspended the operation of the petrol pump and thereafter, called for an explanation from the petitioner vide letter dated 19/12/2011. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner had submitted her reply on 28/12/2011 denying the allegations levelled against her. In her reply, the petitioner had also mentioned that she suspect foul play by her Manager, who could be involved in illegal activities. 3. The IOCL authorities had thereafter constituted a Joint Inspection Committee which had visited the site on 25/03/2012 and on completion of inspection, submitted a report wherein it has been mentioned that there was additional/unauthorised gear in the DU of the petitioner’s petrol pump by means of which it was possible to manipulate the actual quantity of MS Oil, thereby indulging in short supply of petrol. On the basis of the said report of the Joint Inspection Committee, a show cause notice dated 08/06/2012 was served upon the petitioner calling upon her to show cause as to why the dealership should not be terminated. The petitioner had submitted her reply on 21/06/2012 denying the allegations levelled therein. Notwithstanding the same, the IOCL authorities had issued the order dated 20/09/2012 terminating the dealership of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner had thereafter preferred an appeal on 10/10/2012 assailing the order of termination dated 20/09/2012. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the order dated 22/05/2013. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that sealing of the DU of a petrol pump by the W & M Department is one of the crucial measures to prevent any malpractice by the dealers and the said exercise is carried out with the involvement of 3 (three) agencies, viz. the W & M Department, the authorised service provider of the DU and the IOCL authorities. In the present case, submits Mr. Mishra, the W & M Department had recalibrated the pump on 10/12/2011 in presence of the representative of the service provider i.e. Mr. the W & M Department, the authorised service provider of the DU and the IOCL authorities. In the present case, submits Mr. Mishra, the W & M Department had recalibrated the pump on 10/12/2011 in presence of the representative of the service provider i.e. Mr. Gaurav Suman, who is for all practical purposes also an agent of the IOCL. Record would reveal that nothing objectionable was noticed during the recalibration exercise and the seal put by the W & M Department was also found to be intact on 13/12/2011 by the ACC Unit as well as on 25/03/2011 by the Joint Inspection Committee. Mr. Mishra submits that when the seal was found intact, the question of manipulating with the DU by the petitioner cannot arise since the very purpose of putting the seal is to prevent any manipulation with the DU by the dealer. According to Mr. Mishra, it will be impossible for anyone to access or change the gear with the seal intact and therefore, the entire exercise leading to the issuance of the order of termination is vitiated by complete arbitrariness and non-application of mind. The learned senior counsel further submits since it is not a case of tampering with the seal of the Totalizer hence, clause 6.1.4 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005 (MDG) would have no application in the facts of the present case. As regards the allegation of existence of an additional metallic gear, Mr. Mishra has contended that here also it is not possible for the dealer to install any additional gear without tampering with the seal. Therefore, submits Mr. Mishra, the allegation regarding replacement of the gear by putting in place an additional/unauthorised instrument is wholly unfounded. 6. The allegation of short delivery of petroleum oil has also been assailed by Mr. Mishra by contending that it is not possible to make short supply by inserting a small nail in the transfer shaft as has been alleged by the respondents. In the present case, the respondents had neither found any screw driver nor nail in the Dispensing Unit (DU) while carrying out the surprise check and, therefore, the allegation brought against the petitioner to such effect is nothing but mere figments of imagination on the part of the respondents. Mr. In the present case, the respondents had neither found any screw driver nor nail in the Dispensing Unit (DU) while carrying out the surprise check and, therefore, the allegation brought against the petitioner to such effect is nothing but mere figments of imagination on the part of the respondents. Mr. Mishra submits that the entire exercise leading to closing down of the petitioner's petrol pump is actuated malice inasmuch as it is the handiwork of the business rivals of the petitioners who have a vested interest in the matter. 7. By referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Nagoti Venkatramana reported in (1996) 6 SCC 409 , para 8 and also Mrs. Aparna A. Shah Vs. Seth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 71 , Mr. Mishra submits that law is well settled that a penal statute has to be construed strictly. Since the respondents have failed to establish the charge brought against the petitioner so as to invite the consequences under clause 6.1.4 of the MDG, the impugned order of termination of dealership issued by the IOCL is unsustainable in law and hence, liable to be set aside by this court. 8. Referring to another decision in the case of P. Laxminath Rao Vs. Hindustan Petroleum reported in Manu/AP/0151/2011, wherein the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that a dealer of the retail outlet cannot be held liable for malfunctioning of a DU if the seal put upon it is found to be intact, Mr. Mishra submits that similar is the view of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Filling Station Vs. IOCL reported in Manu/DE/3040/2012 wherein, the order of termination of dealership on similar ground was set aside by observing that the authorities did not consider as to how the pump hadtampered with and the alleged extra fittings was installed therein leading to short delivery made, when it was found that the WM seals were intact. 9. Responding to the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the IOCL has contended that the issues raised in the writ petition are all founded on disputed question of facts which cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding. Mr. 9. Responding to the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the IOCL has contended that the issues raised in the writ petition are all founded on disputed question of facts which cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding. Mr. Choudhury further submits that in a similar case where there was a dispute regarding use of foreign elements in a Dispenser, whereby the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of termination, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had held that such contentious issues involving disputed question of facts cannot be decided in a writ petition and, therefore, the petitioner was asked to avail the alternative remedy in the form of arbitration proceeding. 10. It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel that the Joint Inspection Report throws sufficient light as to the nature of mischief committed by the writ petitioner with the help of additional gear attached to the D.U. and there is no justifiable ground to disbelieve the findings of the Joint Inspection Committee, which confirms the observation of the AAC Unit on 13/12/2011. Since the impugned action is based on clear finding of mischief committed by the dealer, according to Mr. Choudhury, there is no scope for the writ court to interfere with the order of termination of the dealership. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the writ petitioner has admitted in her reply dated 28/12/2011 that her Manager might be involved in foul play by putting the additional gear in the Dispensing Unit and, therefore, even on the factual count, no further investigation in the matter is called for by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Mr. H. Das learned counsel appearing for the respondent No 7 has relied upon the statements made in the affidavit filed on behalf of his client to support the arguments made on behalf of the IOCL authorities. 12. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have also gone through the materials brought on record. 13. 12. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have also gone through the materials brought on record. 13. It is not in dispute that the W & M Department had recalibrated the DU of the petitioner’s petrol pump on 10/12/2011 and had replaced the seal nor is it in dispute that the AAC unit had found the seal to be intact when a surprise check was carried out at the petrol pump of the petitioner on 13/12/2011 i.e. two days after the recalibration was done. However, the official of the IOCL had issued a letter dated 19/12/2011 addressed to the writ petitioner inter-alia stating that some additional fittings had been found in the MSDU and that the Totaliser seal was found to be not in order, although, both the meter unit of Totaliser seal put by Legal Metrology Department (WM Department) were found to be intact. Accordingly, the petitioner was restrained from delivering any product from both MS and HSD DU till further communication. By the letter dated 19/12/2011, the petitioner was also asked to submit her explanation on the two observations made by the Inspection team, viz. (i) additional/unauthorised fittings found in the gear chain of metering unit of MSDU and (ii) improper seal in Totaliser Unit of MSDU.”. 14. In her reply, the petitioner had denied of having used any additional gear in the Dispensing Unit or having tampered with the seal but had mentioned that she apprehends that there might have been involvement of some persons so as to malign her reputation and in this respect had further mentioned that Mr. Rasamay Das, former Manager and Mr. Dipak Das, former Cashier of her firm against whom FIR had been lodged earlier leading to registration of PS Case No. 706/2011 might be involved in the matter. 15. Not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the IOCL authorities had issued show cause notice dated 08/06/2012 containing the following two allegations :- “(i) Double metallic gears found one above the other in the gear train of metering unit of MS DU (MIDCO MMB III S model). Additional/Unauthorised fitting found in the gear train of metering unit of MSDU (MIDCO MMB III S). (ii) Totaliser Unit is coming out of the assembly without breaking W & M seal of totaliser unit in MS DU thereby making possibility of tampering the unit. Additional/Unauthorised fitting found in the gear train of metering unit of MSDU (MIDCO MMB III S). (ii) Totaliser Unit is coming out of the assembly without breaking W & M seal of totaliser unit in MS DU thereby making possibility of tampering the unit. Improper sealing in totaliser unit of MS DU.” 16. In the show cause notice, the findings of the Investigation Committee was also reproduced, which is quoted herein below for ready reference :- “The following are the finding of the investigation committee. On careful inspection of the W&M seal on the totaliser, it was also observed that the mechanical totaliser can be removed from the MRA (Mechanical Register Assembly) of the subject DU without disturbing/tampering the W&M seal. This observation confirmed that the sealing of the totaliser unit of MS DU was not proper and said unit can be easily detached from the MRA of the said DU without tampering the W&M seal of the totaliser, enabling manipulation of the totaliser. The above irregularity was found in violation of provisions made under clause no. 6.1.4 of MDG 2005. The penal action as per sr. no. 3 of Appendix-I of MDG 2005 is termination of the retail outlet in the 1st instant irrespective of the delivery from the DU being short/excess. On the gear assembly of the metering unit of the subject DU, it was observed that both the main gear and transfer gear were made up of two gear wheels (having different combination of gear teeth) sandwiched upon each other. The transfer shaft connecting the metering unit to the MRA (Mechanical Register Assembly) had a play, which can be used to shift the transfer shaft gear slightly in the vertical direction. This enables the change of gear ratio between the transfer shaft and the main gear of the metering unit without breaking the W&M seals. All the gear wheels in the gear train ofthe metering unit were found to be of metal, whereas the DU comes fitted from the OEM factory with Teflon gears. The above stated gear train assembly was therefore found to be an additional/unauthorised fitting on the metering unit of MS DU which can be used to manipulate the delivery from the said DU. The said irregularity was found in violation of provisions made under clause 6.1.5 of MDG 2005. The penal action as per sr. no. The above stated gear train assembly was therefore found to be an additional/unauthorised fitting on the metering unit of MS DU which can be used to manipulate the delivery from the said DU. The said irregularity was found in violation of provisions made under clause 6.1.5 of MDG 2005. The penal action as per sr. no. 4 of Appendix-I of MDG 2005 is termination of the retail outlet in the 1st instant. The above stated irregularities are also in violation of the provisions made under clause no. 42 of the dealership agreement executed by and between yourself and the Corporation on 17/12/2010. You are hereby show cause, why disciplinary action for termination of the retail outlet should not be taken against your Retail Outlet dealership viz. M/s. Saradamani Filling Concern, Silchar for violation of the clause nos. 6.1.4 & 6.1.5 of MDG 2005. Your reply should reach the undersigned within 10(ten) days from the date of issue of the letter.” 17. Responding to the Show Cause Notice dated 08/06/2012 the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply on 21/06/2012 denying the allegations brought against her. After considering her reply, the IOCL authorities had issued the order dated 20/09/2012 terminating the dealership. The termination order dated 20/09/2012 furnishes the grounds on which the order has been issued. The relevant portion of the termination order is quoted herein below for ready reference :- “On observation of the joint investigation committee report, the main gear and the transfer gear of the meter unit were made up of two gear wheels which enabled the change of gear ratio between the transfer shaft and the main gear without breaking the W&M seal. Your justification that the W&M seals were not tampered with and if any shifting of gear can be done without tempering the W&M seal, it means the seals affixed by the legal metrological department were not done as per the procedure andhence the same cannot be made a basis for the closure of the RO. The report of the Investigation Committee stated that the fuel supply quantity can be manipulated through the additional gear by raising the transfer shaft in the vertical direction using a screw driver. The report of the Investigation Committee stated that the fuel supply quantity can be manipulated through the additional gear by raising the transfer shaft in the vertical direction using a screw driver. As per your reply, it is not possible to make short supply by using the additional gear, as the DU cover has to be opened and the gear shaft to be raised by a screw driver in front of the customer of which the situation is most unreasonable. However, to make short supply quantity by using the additional gear, you or your representative will open the DU cover, raise the gear shaft by a small nail (in place of screw driver), close the DU cover again and continue supplying product in short quantities. Under such situation, customer will be unaware and keep getting short fuel supply. Therefore, your reason as stated above is found unreasonable and cannot be accepted. In your reply, the DU in question is the property of the IOCL and hence it is the responsibility of the IOCL for any mechanical failure. Thus your responsibility is limited to right quality and quantity fuel supply. Though, the DU is the property of the Corporation, other than maintenance, the calibration and sealing of the DUs as per correct procedure is the responsibility of the dealer. Therefore, the reasons as stated above cannot be accepted. The field officer during his inspection had reported only to the points as per his observations. Hence, any wrong doings by you or your representatives cannot be thrust on the inspection reports of the field officer. Therefore, the allegation made against the field officer is unrealistic and also cannot be accepted.” 18. The MDG, 2005 is a set of disciplinary guidelines which has been relied upon by the IOCL authorities for terminating the dealership of the petitioner. Clauses 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 of the said guidelines would be relevant for the purpose of this case and are, therefore, quoted herein below :- “6.1.4.TOTALISER SEALS FOUND TEMPERED WITH If intended tampering of the Totaliser seals are established leading to manipulation of Totaliser reading with Weights & Measures seals intact, Penal action as given in Appendix-I to be taken. 6.1.5 ADDITIONAL/UNAUTHORISED FITTINGS/GEARS FOUND IN DISPENSING UNITS Any mechanism/fittings/gear found fitted in the dispensing unit with the intention of manipulating the delivery, Penal action to be taken as given in Appendix-1.” 19. 6.1.5 ADDITIONAL/UNAUTHORISED FITTINGS/GEARS FOUND IN DISPENSING UNITS Any mechanism/fittings/gear found fitted in the dispensing unit with the intention of manipulating the delivery, Penal action to be taken as given in Appendix-1.” 19. As would be evident from the facts alluded above, the termination order dated 20/09/2012 was issued on the ground that the petitioner had used an additional fittings containing double gear fitted in the Dispensing Unit (DU) but there is no explanation anywhere on record as to how such a gear could have been fitted to the DU without tempering with the seal. The respondent no. 7, who is the authority of the Legal Meteorological Department, had filed an affidavit in this case on 02/09/2013, inter-alia, confirming that no additional/unauthorised fittings was detected by him on 10/12/2011 when the DU was sealed. The doubt raised by the IOCL authorities regarding the use of seal bearing mark “10D” had also been clarified by the respondent No 7 in his affidavit. The statements made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said affidavit would be relevant in this case and are, therefore, extracted herein below :- “7. That with regard to the statements in Paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that he re-calibrated the Dispensing Units (in short DUS) as per rules and at the time of re-calibration no additional/unauthorised fitting on the gear chain etc. was detected by the deponent. The metering units and totalisers of the Dispensing Units were sealed by the deponent as per guidelines of Legal Metrology General Rule 2011. Hence, how the totaliser Unit came out of the assembly without breaking the W &M (legal Metrology) seals as alleged beyond his knowledge. Further the deponent was intimated by Mr. K.K. Pegoo, Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Silchar on 19/03/2012 to be available on25/03/2012 during investigation into the irregularities at M/S Saradamoni Filling Concern. Accordingly, being the concerned Inspector, the deponent informed by the IOC authority to be present on that day vide his letter dated 19/03/1012. Unfortunately, the deponent fell ill and under went treatment at S.M. Dev Civil Hospital, Silchar on 25/03/2012 and hence he could not be present at M/s. Saradamoni Filling Concern on that day. 8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph no. Unfortunately, the deponent fell ill and under went treatment at S.M. Dev Civil Hospital, Silchar on 25/03/2012 and hence he could not be present at M/s. Saradamoni Filling Concern on that day. 8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph no. 14 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that at the time of re-verification/re-calibration of the DUS at M/s. Saradamoni Filling Concern, the deponent put seals inscribing “11D” on the Metering Unit and the Totaliser on 10/12/2011 which are reported to be intact and fine. As the punches allotted to us for the year 2010 has been returned to the concerned O/O the Asstt. Controller of Legal Metrology at the time of receiving punches for the year 2011, there is no scope on part of the deponent for putting seals inscribing “10D” on the DUS.” 20. The respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 had also filed a joint affidavit in their attempt to justify the impugned order dated 20/09/2012 as well as the appellate order dated 22/05/2013. Statements made in paragraph 24(ii) (iv) and 28 (vii) would be of great relevance in this case and are, therefore, reproduced herein below :- The following statements have been made in paragraph 24(ii) - “24(ii) The DU is property of IOCL and is the responsibility of the IOCL to maintain therefore lies with IOCL. OEM does the maintenance of the DUs on behalf of IOCL. It may be noted that during the monthly maintenance of the DU, the OEM did not find any foreign (additional/unauthorised fittings) items inside the DU. Whatever unauthorised gears were found, the same might have been done after the monthly maintenance of the OEM. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the dealer to keep the DU from any unauthorised fittings.” 24(iv) reads as follows :- “24(iv) As stated in the appellate order, the dealer had replaced the OEMsupplied gear made of Teflon by a double metallic gear which is capable of manipulating the delivery. During various inspections were carried out by IOCL on dates 01.11.11; 27.09.11 and 30.06.11, it was observed that no such unauthorised gear assembly was placed inside the DU. During various inspections were carried out by IOCL on dates 01.11.11; 27.09.11 and 30.06.11, it was observed that no such unauthorised gear assembly was placed inside the DU. Whatever was done, the same might have happen after the inspection dated 07.11.11 of which the same was installed by the dealer or her representative.” 28(vii) reads as follows :- “28(vii) As per the request of the petitioner, the W&M officials visited the RO on 10.12.11 and recalibrated the DUs in presence of the OEM SE. During that time no unauthorised fittings were observed either by the W&M or by the OEM SE. Also, the totaliser was well positioned in its place in the DU. However, during the visit of the AAC on 13.12.11, extra fittings were observed inside the gear transfer and the totaliser sealing was not found as per the correct procedure. As a result, it was observed that the totaliser can be removed without disturbing the sealing system. It can therefore be proved that the dealer or her representative must have fitted the unauthorised gear into the gear assembly during those two days.” 21. From a close scrutiny of the statements made by the respondent nos. 2 to 6 in their affidavit, it is be apparent that the basic plea of the respondents 6 has been that the petitioner has used an additional gear to manipulate the delivery of M.S. However, surprisingly enough, no such additional gear had been seized by the IOCL authorities. Not only that, during the surprise check carried out on 13/12/2011, save and except the officials of the IOCL, no other independent witness or official from any other department was present at the site. 22. A reading of the joint inspection report dated 25/03/2012 goes to show that the W & M seals of the D.U. were checked and were found to be “OK” on 10/12/2011 by Shri GauravSuman who did not mention about the presence of any additional/unauthorised fittings in the subject DU confirming the fact that there were no additional/unauthorised fittings in the DU till 10/12/2011. In other wards, the IOCL authorities had also accepted the fact that as on 10/12/2011 when the W & M authorities had recalibrated the machine and put the seal on the D.U in presence of Mr. Gaurav Suman, there was no additional/unauthorised fittings found in the DU. In other wards, the IOCL authorities had also accepted the fact that as on 10/12/2011 when the W & M authorities had recalibrated the machine and put the seal on the D.U in presence of Mr. Gaurav Suman, there was no additional/unauthorised fittings found in the DU. The Joint Inspection Committee was, however, of the view that the additional/unauthorised fitting was put in place by the petitioner after 10/12/2011. But the said report does not throw light on the vital point as to how the additional fittings could be inserted without tampering with the seal. The observations made in paragraph 7 to 11 of the joint inspection report dated 15/03/2012 would be significant for the purpose of this case and the same are reproduced herein below :- “7. On inspection of the W &M seals of metering unit of the subject DU, it was found to be in proper condition. However, the period inscribed in the seal is 10 D, indicating that the same was put on the metering unit by Legal Metrology department in between Oct-Dec 2010, while the date recorded in the calibration certificate no. 6 of Book no. 11082 was issued by the Legal Metrology department is 10.12.2011. 8. Again on inspection of the totaliser unit of the subject DU, the same was found to be sealed by a W&M sealing bearing inspection of 10D, indicating that the same was also put on the totaliser unit by Legal Metrology department in between Oct-Dec 2010, while the date recorded in the calibration certificate no. 6 of Book No. 11082 was issued by the Legal Metrology department is 10/12/2011. 9. On careful inspection of the W&M seal on the totaliser, it was also observed by the committee that the mechanical totaliser can be removed from the MRA (Mechanical Register Assembly) of the subject DU without disturbing/tampering the W&M seal, which leaves ample scope for manipulation of the totaliser itself. 10. On the gear assembly of the metering unit of the subject DU, it was observed that both the main gear and the transfer gear were made up of two gear wheels(having different combination of gear teeth) sandwiched upon each other. The transfer shaft connecting the metering unit to the MRA had a play, which can be used to shift the transfer shaft gear slightly in the vertical direction. The transfer shaft connecting the metering unit to the MRA had a play, which can be used to shift the transfer shaft gear slightly in the vertical direction. This enables the change of gear ratio between the transfer shaft and the main gear of the metering unit without breaking the W&M seals. All the gear wheels in the gear train of the metering unit were found to be of metal whereas the DU comes fitted from the OEM factory with Teflon gears. 11. The committee initially dispensed about 15 litres through the nozzle of the subject DU to release the pipeline airlock after which the delivery of the DU was checked by dispensing about 30 litres using standard 5 Litres calibrated measure. Initially when the delivery of the subject DU was checked, in it’s as it is condition, the delivery was found to be OK. However, by raising the transfer shaft of the metering unit slightly in the vertical direction by using a screw driver (without breaking/tampering/touching the W&M seal), the delivery from the DU was found to be short by approximately 150 ml to 160 ml in 5 Litres. In other words it can be stated without any doubt that there are additional/unauthorised fittings in the subject DU, which can be used to manipulate the delivery from the subject DU without tampering the W&M seal.” 23. There is no wrangle at the bar that the responsibility to properly maintain the D.U. Lies with the IOCL. It is also admitted by the respondents that the very purpose of sealing the D.U was to ensure that there is no scope for the retailer to manipulate the supply MS or HSD to the customers Since it is not in dispute that there was no unauthorised unit found by the authorities barely two days before the surprise check i.e. on 10/12/2011 when the W &M Department officials had recalibrated and sealed the DU in presence of the representative of Service Provider and considering the fact that the writ petitioner herself was not present on 13/12/2011, it was incumbent upon the respondents to come out clear as to how the DU could be manipulated with the seals intact. However, as noted above, the respondents havefailed to explain as to how a Dispensing Unit could be tempered with without breaking the seal of the W & M Department. However, as noted above, the respondents havefailed to explain as to how a Dispensing Unit could be tempered with without breaking the seal of the W & M Department. Although the IOCL officials had suggested that the sealing procedure adopted by the W & M Department in this case was not correct, even assuming the same was true, there is nothing on record to confirm the aforesaid position. 24. It would be further significant to note herein that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of termination dated 20/09/2012. It appears that matter was heard by the respondent no. 4 but the order dated 22/05/2013 rejecting the appeal has been issued by respondent no. 5 who did not hear the submission advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner. Not only that, the order dated 22/05/2013 issued by the appellate authority goes to project a completely new dimension in the matter which was hitherto not raised either by the AAC or the Joint Inspection Committee. The relevant portion of the order dated 22/05/2013 bearing the observation of the appellate authority is quoted herein below for ready reference :- “Totaliser in a Dispensing unit registers the total volume dispensed by the unit. The totaliser readings are very important as these are used during verification of stock at the RO. Stock variation beyond permissible limits in MS or HSD may indicate irregularities at RO including adulteration of product or its unauthorised purchase or sale. Totalisers are sealed to prevent any manipulation of its reading. Sealing is done in such a way that any attempt to take out totaliser will result in breaking of seal or the seal wire. In the instant case the sealing system had been tampered so that one could take out totaliser with seal intact. Thus it was possible to sell product without totaliser of the Dispensing Unit. In the condition it was observed the entire totaliser system was found tampered with and the very object of putting totaliser was being defeated. Therefore, the appellant’s contention that the allegation cannot be termed as established intended tampering of totaliser seals leading to manipulation of totaliser reading is devoid of merit.” 25. The aforesaid observation made by the appellate authority clearly contradicts the consistent stand of the AAC and the Joint Inspection Committee that the “W & M Seals were found intact”. Therefore, the appellant’s contention that the allegation cannot be termed as established intended tampering of totaliser seals leading to manipulation of totaliser reading is devoid of merit.” 25. The aforesaid observation made by the appellate authority clearly contradicts the consistent stand of the AAC and the Joint Inspection Committee that the “W & M Seals were found intact”. The above observation of the appellate authority, therefore, not only indicates a complete shift in the stand of the IOCL from what was earlier projected in the AAC Unit report and the report of the Joint Inspection Committee, but the same in the opinion of this Court, makes out a completely new case not contemplated by the Show Cause Notice dated 08/06/2012. The aforesaid contradiction not only goes to the root of the matter but also makes the allegation levelled in the Show Cause Notice dated 08/06/2012 as wholly untenable on the face of the record. 26. It would be pertinent to mention herein that the Show Cause Notice dated 08/06/2012 has clearly stated that the sealing of the DU was not proper and therefore, it was possible to manipulate the DU. But as has been noted above, it is the responsibility of the IOCL authorities to ensure proper sealing of the DU and therefore, it is not understood as to how the dealer could have been held responsible for any defect in the sealing procedure. Alternately, if the view of the appellate authority is taken on its face value, then also, manipulation of the DU by the dealer, in the facts of this case, would not be possible without the complicity of the W & M department official or the representative of the OEM. It would be significant to note herein that no such allegation has been made by the IOCL against the W&M Department or the OEM representative. 27. From the decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel in the case of Nagoti Venkatraman (Supra), it is apparent that a penal provision of the statute ought to be construed strictly. In the present case, the effect and impact of the order of terminationof dealership would be that the petitioner’s right to earn her livelihood would be taken away. In the present case, the effect and impact of the order of terminationof dealership would be that the petitioner’s right to earn her livelihood would be taken away. It is no doubt true that it is not only the duty but also the responsibility of the IOCL authorities to ensure that the retail outlet operators provide good and proper quantity of MS/HSD to its consumers and if any anomaly is detected in respect thereof, stringent action, as may be permissible under the Rules, is required to be taken. But in doing so, the respondents would be obliged to follow a transparent procedure and act in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice as well as the Rules applicable therein. 28. In the present case, I find that there is no clarity on the charges brought by the IOCL authorities against the writ petitioner. There is no explanation as to how an additional/ unauthorised fitting could be inserted in the DU by the dealer without tampering with seal. The appellate authority has held that the petitioner had tampered with the seal but it is not clear from the record that if the seal had actually been tampered with then who did it and at what stage. It is also not understood as to why such vital fact regarding alleged “seal tampering” by the petitioner was not clearly mentioned in the AAC report or the Joint Inspection Committee report. It may be noted that the said reports rather project a contrary picture on this issue. Most importantly, there is no explanation as to why the so called “additional fitting” could not be seized by the AAC in presence of independent witnesses. The aforesaid omissions, in the opinion of this court, assumes great significance in view of the specific plea taken by the writ petitioner that the impugned action had been initiated at the instance of petitioner’s business rivals so as to malign her reputation. Although Mr. Choudhury has made an attempt to impress upon this court that the petitioner had admitted her guilt in her reply dated 28/12/2011, but, form a plain reading of the statements made in the said reply, I find that it was a preliminary response of the petitioner wherein, she had merelyhinted at a possible sabotage by her disgruntled former employees but did not admit of her involvement in the matter in any manner. 29. 29. Having observed as above, it must also be noted herein that law is well settled that the writ Court would not embark on an inquiry in respect of a controversy involving disputed questions of fact nor will it sit in appeal over the decision of the authorities involving domain specific expertise. But in the present case, the basic facts are not in dispute and the factual findings based on which the impugned action had been initiated is also evident on the face of the record. From a careful analysis of the materials available on record I find that the entire action of the respondent authorities is based on a hypothesis which also appears to be founded not only on a concoction of inconsistent stand of the respondents but also a projection which appears to be self contradictory. The various reports brought on record by the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 do not clearly support their case that the petitioner has acted in contravention of Clauses 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 of the MDG, 2005. I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Mishra that a penal provision must be interpreted strictly and the respondents cannot be permitted to take the extreme step of terminating the dealership without clearly establishing violation of the terms of the MDG on the part of the petitioner. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 20/09/2012 has been issued in an arbitrary and illegal manner. That apart, the order dated 22/05/2013 of the appellate authority also deals with issues and projects a case not contemplated by the Show Cause Notice dated 08/06/2012 and hence, the same cannot receive the approval of this court. 30. For the reasons stated herein above, I am of the view that the impugned orders dated 20/09/2012 and 22/05/2013 are unsustainable in the eye of law and are accordingly setaside. Writ petitions stands allowed. The dealership of the writ petitioner be restored forthwith. There would be no order as to costs.