Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1289 (AP)

Kasturi Petroleums v. Union Of India

2024-09-12

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2024
ORDER: Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in termination of „A? site retail outlet dealership of the Petitioner i.e., M/s.Kasturi Petroleums situated at Etukuru Road, Nallacheruvu, Guntur town Vide Ref.VJADO/MDG/KASTURI PETROLEUM/180694 Dated 06.09.2024 after lapse of 4 years from the date of inspection team report SI.No.1282387 dated 04.09.2020 though the petitioner submitted reply on 02.11.2022 to this Show cause notice dated 14.10.2022 in spite of the fact that all the parameters are intact and without considering objections raised by the petitioner at the time of hearing and issued the termination order of the „A? site retail outlet dealership of the Petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG), hence the impugned termination order is liable to be set aside and consequently direct the respondent authorities to drop/cancel the impugned termination order issued by the 2nd respondent as the petitioner is no way connected with the internal part of the DU i.e., E01 and Ell error logs as all the seals have been found intact and the petitioner sufficiently suffered for 4 years due to suspension of DU with 4 Nozzles and to pass such other or orders ….” 2. The short grievance of the petitioner herein is that the 2nd respondent herein has terminated the petitioner’s retail outlet dealership vide order dated 06.09.2024 after lapse of four years from the date of inspection dated 04.09.2020 though the petitioner submitted reply on 02.11.2022 to the show cause notice dated 14.10.2022 issued to him. Enquiry also conducted in the year 2022 itself. To the surprise of the petitioner this impugned termination proceedings dated 06.09.2024 were served on 10.09.2024, when W.P.No.19715 of 2024 came up for hearing at the time of admission. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is appointed as retail outlet dealer at Etukuru Road, Nallacheruvu, Guntur District by the respondent corporation on 31.01.2005. Since then, the petitioner has been operating retail outlet business without any adverse remarks. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is appointed as retail outlet dealer at Etukuru Road, Nallacheruvu, Guntur District by the respondent corporation on 31.01.2005. Since then, the petitioner has been operating retail outlet business without any adverse remarks. While things stood thus, the Inspection Team from Divisional Office along with Legal Metrology Department and OEM vendors conducted inspection on 04.09.2020 and some technical defects in respect of E01 & E11 logs have been observed. All K factors have found to be matching with calibration logs. On further observation of the DU, all the seals have been found intact but it was observed that there is difference between seals of control card and that of the pulsars. There were few places on the control card where there is a suspicion of tampering. So all the integrated cards have been removed and sealed in the presence of all the members and the same were sent for testing. The test report shows that the dispensing unit is in order and within the permissible limits with all the seals intact without any tampering. Even though the seals were intact and delivery of the dispensing unit was correct, inspection team has suspended the sales of MS/HSD from one dispensing unit from 04.09.2020. Even after lapse of four years, the respondents neither reviewed nor revoked the suspension of the dispensing unit. He further submits that once the seal is found to be as intact the dealer cannot be held responsible for any error or defect. Moreover, the dealer cannot access the internal mechanism of dispensing unit. 4(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the letter dated 04.09.2020 addressed by the inspection teams, the sales from the dispensing unit were stopped. Further, the petitioner herein submitted his detailed reply/ explanation on 02.11.2022 against the notices dated 04.092020 and 14.10.2022. But the said explanation was neither considered nor passed any orders. Having no other option, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.19715 of 2024 on 03.09.2024 challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not revoking the dispensing unit till today from the date of inspection team report dated 04.09.2020 as illegal, arbitrary. But the said explanation was neither considered nor passed any orders. Having no other option, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.19715 of 2024 on 03.09.2024 challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not revoking the dispensing unit till today from the date of inspection team report dated 04.09.2020 as illegal, arbitrary. Pending the writ petition on 10.09.2024 at the time of hearing the petition, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the 2nd respondent issued a termination order dated 06.09.2024 terminating the ‘A’ site retail outlet dealership of the petitioner i.e., M/s.Kasturi Petroleums situated at Etukuru Road, Nallacheruvu, Guntur town and served the same at the time of hearing. Accordingly, the W.P.No.19715 of 2024 was pleased to be disposed of. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4(b). He further submits that, even in the said impugned order they have categorically stated that, the petitioner can avail alternative remedy of appeal by providing thirty (30) days time. Without waiting for the said thirty (30) days time, the authorities have directed to hand-over the entire records and possession of the equipments which are entrusted to the petitioner during the currency of the agreement and further direction was given to remove all the belongings and vacate the site within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the letter dated 06.09.2024. If such operative portion is allowed to continue, the purpose of filing statutory appeal before the concerned appellate authority would be defeated and it would be a futile exercise. As such, prayed to protect the interest of the petitioner by passing an appropriate order in that regard. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in similar circumstances, this Court passed an order in W.P No.1704 of 2023, wherein the petitioner was relegated to avail an alternative remedy of appeal and prayed to pass similar order in the present case. He further submits that, when the petitioner’s dealership has been terminated, the petitioner cannot hold the retail outlet until he succeeds in appeal and he cannot avail anything under dealership. As such, no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner in the present Writ Petition as the petitioner has to file an appeal before the competent authority and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders. 6. As such, no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner in the present Writ Petition as the petitioner has to file an appeal before the competent authority and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.10.2022 i.e., after the inspection by the respondents on 04.09.2020 and lab analysis report dated 18.02.2021 and in turn reply/explanation was also submitted to the said show cause notice on 02.11.2022. Thereupon entire enquiry was conducted in the year 2022 itself. But reasons known to the respondents, they kept quite for two years, without there being any action. Certainly, the impugned proceedings appears to be lacks fair and reasonable conduct on part of the respondent No.2, being a public authority. It is further observed that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is in clear violation of principles of natural justice is not valid. However, in the operative portion of the order, they have categorically stated that the petitioner has to handover the entire possession along with all the records within a period of ten days from the date of issuance of the termination order i.e., 06.09.2024. In the impugned order dated 06.09.2024, it is also stated that the petitioner has right to avail an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal within a period of thirty (30) days. Before expiry of thirty (30) days, the authorities cannot ask the petitioner to handover the possession to the Corporation. In the said circumstances, there is force in the contention of the petitioner. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion petitioner is entitled for interim relief. However, in view of the statutory appeal, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this court is inclined to pass the following order: i) The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal as per the paragraph 8.9 of the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines and applications seeking interim reliefs, if so advised within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. ii) Further, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue the operations as usual till disposal of the appeal to be filed before the appellate authority. ii) Further, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue the operations as usual till disposal of the appeal to be filed before the appellate authority. iii) The appellate authority is directed to pass appropriate orders independently uninfluenced by the observation, if any made in the present Writ Petition. iv) Learned counsel for the respondents is specifically directed to inform the orders of this Court to the respondents. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall also stand closed.