Jharkhand High Court
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs M/S Shree Sainath Filling Station ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2018:JHHC:30940-DB
2025:JHHC:13978-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No. 65 of 2010
--------
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government of India
Enterprise having its registered office at 17 Jamshedjee Tata Road,
PO&PS-JT Road, Mumbai- 400020 (Maharastra) and one of its
Regional Office at Burma Mines, Opposite Star Talkies, P.O.-
Tatanagar, PO & PS-Sakchi Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum,
now shifted at Maru Tower (5th Floor), Kanke Road, PO & PS-Kanke
Ranchi-834008.
2. The Regional Manager-Retail, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Burma Mines, Opposite Star Talkies, P.O.- Tatanagar, PO &
PS-Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, now shifted at
Maru Tower (5th Floor), Kanke Road, PO & PS- Kanke, Ranchi-
834008
... ... Appellants
Versus
M/s Shree Sainath Filling Station having its business at Sarsa, P.O.
Sarsa, P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar, through its proprietrix Smt. Soni
Kumari wife of Shri Manoj Kumar Bhagat, resident of Kajaria Kothi,
Subhash Chowk, P.O., P.S., Town and District- Deoghar
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate
--------
JUDGMENT
CAV On 20/03/2025 Pronounced On 09/ 05/2025
Per Deepak Roshan, J.
1. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant against the order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5640 of 2007, whereby the learned Single
Judge has quashed the impugned order dated 22.09.2007 and the
matter was remitted back to the appellant-Corporation to pass an
2018:JHHC:30940-DB
2025:JHHC:13978-DB
appropriate order afresh in accordance with law by complying the
observations passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A
No. 621 of 2006.
2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary to decide
this appeal are that the respondent was offered retail outlet dealership
of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and a dealership
agreement was entered into with the respondent on 30.07.2004 on the
terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. The respondent
was appointed as dealer in High-Speed Diesel Oil / Petrol and
Lubricants at the retail outlet.
3. A random inspection was done at the respondent retail
outlet (petrol pump) by the Manager (Quality Control), Eastern Zone,
HPCL on 20.6.2006. The inspection was carried out in presence of the
respondent's representative and a report of inspection was prepared.
Signature of the respondent's representative was obtained on the
report and a copy of the report was given to him by the inspecting
team. It is stated that in course of inspection, following irregularities
were detected:
a. The ULP dispensing Unit was found delivering short by 80 ml. in 5
liters measure and the Weights and Measures seal on the totalizer of
the same unit was found tampered.
b. The tank lorry retention sample (for last 2 receipts of all products)
was not made available to the Inspecting Officer at the time of
inspection.
4. As per the appellant, the representative, in whose
presence inspection was carried out and to whom a copy of the
inspection report was handed over, did not raise any objection
2018:JHHC:30940-DB
2025:JHHC:13978-DB
whatsoever either in respect of the manner in which the inspection
was carried out or in respect of the findings mentioned in the
inspection report, nor made any endorsement on the report raising
any objection against the correctness of the findings.
5. On the basis of the inspection report, the appellant-
Corporation served a show-cause notice on 26.06.2006 to the
respondent calling upon him to explain the irregularities which were
found in course of inspection.
6. The respondent responded by submitting its show-cause
replies on 12.07.2006 admitting therein that there was short delivery
of about 80 ml in 5 liters in the dispensing Unit, but explained that the
short delivery may be on account of the presence of air in the pipe.
The respondent disputed the correctness of the inspection report
stating therein that there could be no tampering of the dispensing Unit
in view of the fact that in course of inspection carried out by the
Inspector, Weights and Measure Department, Deoghar on 11.07.2006,
the original seal and the cross seal on the dispensing/totalizer Unit,
was found intact and not tampered.
7. The appellant did not feel satisfied with the explanation
offered by the respondent and issued a second show-cause notice
calling upon the respondent to explain as to why penal action, as
stipulated in the dealership agreement for terminating the dealership
agreement, should not be taken.
8. In response, the respondent submitted his show-cause
2018:JHHC:30940-DB
2025:JHHC:13978-DB
replies raising a fresh ground that the inspection was carried out after
closure of the petrol pump at 6.00 PM and in absence of electricity, but
the appellant-Corporation declared the same as unsatisfactory and
cancelled the dealership agreement of the respondent.
9. Pursuant to the cancellation of dealership agreement, the
respondent filed a writ application before this Court being WP(C) No.
6583 of 2006 which was dismissed; however, the respondent assailed
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in LPA No. 621 of 2006
which was disposed of vide order dated 16.01.2007 by setting aside
the impugned order of termination of dealership and remitting the case
back to the appellant to conduct a fresh enquiry by giving adequate
opportunity to the respondent and pass an appropriate order.
10. Pursuant thereto, the appellant conducted a fresh enquiry
by calling upon the respondent and passed order dated 26.03.2007
confirming the earlier order of termination dated 01.11.2006 and did
not restore the dealership agreement.
11. The respondent again assailed the order dated
26.03.2007 which was registered as WP(C) No. 1996 of 2007 and
was disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2007 remitting the case back
to the appellant to pass an appropriate order afresh by complying the
observations and directions of this Court rendered in LPA No. 621 of
2006.
12. In the second round of litigation, the learned Single Judge
has categorically observed that though in the impugned order the
2018:JHHC:30940-DB
2025:JHHC:13978-DB
report of inspection carried out by the Inspector, Weights and Measure
Department on 11.07.2006 was mentioned but no finding has been
given with regard to the said document which had declared that the
seals were not tampered. After the second remand order, the Regional
Manager of the appellant-Corporation again conducted an enquiry and
after conclusion of the enquiry the enquiry officer had recorded the
impugned order confirming the termination of dealership agreement
and rejecting the respondent's prayer for restoration.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the impugned order was
passed after allowing the respondent reasonable and adequate
opportunity of being heard and upon considering the entire documents
submitted by the respondent the order was passed strictly in
adherence to the observation contained in the order passed by the
Division Bench in LPA No. 621 of 2006.
14. Learned counsel contended that the documents i.e. report
of Inspector, Weight and Measure Department dated 11.07.2006 was
not only considered but finding was also recorded thereon. He draws
attention of this Court towards the impugned order of termination of
dealership and submits that the authority has given a specific finding
with respect to the report of the Inspector, Weights and Measure
Department that the purported inspection by the Inspector, Weights
and Measure Department was made after 21 days of the date of
inspection carried out by the representative of the appellant-
2018:JHHC:30940-DB
2025:JHHC:13978-DB
Corporation and no prior intimation was given to the appellant about
any proposed inspection by the Weights and Measure Department.
It has been submitted that since the writ Court has not
considered and ignored the specific finding, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge may be quashed and set-aside and the order of
termination dated 22.09.2007 be restored.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that in the light of report issued by the officer of Weights and Measure
Department on 11.07.2006 it is amply clear that there was no
tampering of the seals of the dispensing Unit and the appellant
authorities ought to have considered that the seals of
totalizer/dispensing Unit being intact, there could be no possibility of
manipulation of the totalizer/dispensing reading and therefore no fault
could be attributed to the respondent and admittedly the appellant
even in the 2nd round did not record any finding in respect of the report
of the Weights and Measure Department and the learned writ Court
has rightly remitted the case back to the appellant-Corporation again
to pass an appropriate order afresh strictly complying the observation
and direction passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.
621 of 2006.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the documents available on record and the impugned
order, it is clear that the case has a chequered history and the
respondents were forced to come thrice before this Court only for the
2018:JHHC:30940-DB
2025:JHHC:13978-DB
reason that on earlier two occasions, no findings were given by the
appellant- Corporation with regard to the finding given by the Weights
and Measure Authorities. It appears from the record that when the first
writ application was dismissed and the respondent preferred an
appeal; the same was allowed by quashing the impugned order of
termination and remitting the matter back to the respondents to
conduct a fresh enquiry by giving adequate opportunity.
Though the concerned authorities conducted a fresh
enquiry but did not give any finding about the report issued by the
Weights and Measure Department and thereafter in the second round
of litigation; the writ petition was again remitted back with a specific
direction that observation and direction of this Court in LPA No. 621 of
2006 must be complied with. However, the record suggests that even
after second remand order; the appellant-Corporation did not adhere
to the specific observation, which forced the respondent to file fresh
writ petition, whereby again the learned Single Judge has remitted
back the case for a fresh consideration.
As a matter of fact, in the second round of litigation itself
there is a categorically finding of learned Single Judge that though in
the impugned order the report of inspection carried out by the
Inspector, Weights and Measure on 11.07.2006 was mentioned but no
finding has been given with regard to the said document which had
declared that the seals were not tampered.
17. It further transpires that after the second round of litigation,
2018:JHHC:30940-DB
2025:JHHC:13978-DB
though a finding was given that the purported inspection by the
Inspector, Weights and Measure was made after 21 days of the date
of inspection carried out by representative of the appellant-
Corporation but the fact remains that nowhere in the finding it has
been mentioned that when the report of Weights and Measure
Department after inspecting the dispensing Unit on 11.07.2006
confirmed therein that there was no tampering of seal of dispensing
Unit then merely on the ground that the inspection was made after 21
days of the date of inspection carried out by the representative of
appellant, has no substance because once there is no tampering then
certainly the claim of the respondent that there could be no possibility
of manipulation of totalizer/dispensing reading and the shortage of
delivery could be on account of various factors and reasons other then
manipulation for which the respondent cannot be held liable or
responsible. Admittedly, there is no finding on this aspect of the matter.
18. It is further evident from record that as per clause 6.1.3 of
the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005 which governs the terms of
the dealership agreement, in case of short delivery of products, if the
weights and measure seals are intact, then the only prescribed penal
action is immediate suspension of sales and supplies from the
dispensing Unit till re-calibration is carried out by the Weights; and
Measure Department in presence of an officer of the oil company and
as per clause 6.1.4 of the same guidelines it is only in the case of
tampering, the termination of dealership agreement can be made and
2018:JHHC:30940-DB
2025:JHHC:13978-DB
not otherwise.
19. As a matter of fact, the main ground on which the order
terminating the dealership agreement has been assailed by the
respondent is that no finding has been recorded by the concerned
authority of the appellant-Corporation in respect of the report of the
Weights and Measure Department which was never disputed by the
appellant.
Admittedly, there is no clear finding on the report of
Inspector, Weights and Measure Department rather it has been
avoided merely on the ground that the inspection carried out by the
representative of the appellant-Corporation would prevail upon the
inspection carried out by the Inspector, Weights and Measure
Department.
Even otherwise, if the credibility of the report of Inspector,
Weights and Measure prepared on 11.07.2007 is not disputed, then
the concerned authority of the appellant-Corporation has to meet the
finding made in the report of the said authority and to answer why the
same should not be considered as reasonable explanation offered by
the respondent.
20. As stated hereinabove, the ground stated confirming the
order of termination of the dealership agreement and the rejection of
respondent's prayer for restoration of dealership are virtually the same
as recorded in earlier orders without recording any finding on the
reports of Inspector, Weights and Measure Department.
2018:JHHC:30940-DB
2025:JHHC:13978-DB
The writ Court has rightly quashed the impugned order
dated 22.09.2007 and remitted back the matter to the appellant-
Corporation to pass an appropriate order afresh strictly by complying
the observations and directions passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in LPA No. 621 of 2006. We do not find any reason, whatsoever,
to interfere with the order passed by the writ Court who has dealt each
and every aspect of the matter and remitted the case back to the
appellant-Corporation to pass a fresh order after giving specific finding
to the report of the Weights and Measure, Department.
21. As a result, the instant appeal stands dismissed. However,
there is no order as to cost.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amit
N.A.F.R
