AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original Plaintiff ? present Appellant has challenged the judgement and decree dated 29.09.1989 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 34 of 1984 whereby the trial court dismissed the suit.
It is the case of the Appellant that on 30.03.1982 a group of 10/12 persons from the Food Controller Office had arrived at the Petrol Pump of the Appellant situated in Maninagar. During the course of their visit, they seized samples of petrol, M.S. and H.S.D which was found to be adulterated on inspection. A show cause notice was issued which was replied to by the Appellant. Thereafter on 20.02.1983, order of confiscation was passed by the authorities. Thereafter, proceedings were also initiated for cancellation of licence by the Food and Civil Supplies Controller and a show cause notice thereof was issued. The same was replied to by the Appellant. However, on 18.11.1982, the authorities decided not to cancel the licence.
2.1 It is the case of the Appellant that the supply of petrol to the Appellant''s petrol pump which was cut off was restored on 25.04.1983. However, on 26.04.1983 when the Appellant applied to the Respondent No. 1 for petrol, the Respondent No. 1 did not supply petrol. The Appellant therefore filed Special Civil Application No. 2166 of 1983 which was withdrawn with an understanding that if the Appellant made a representation to the Head Office of Respondent No. 1 at Bombay, the same would be recommended. Accordingly, the Appellant made a representation on 12.05.1983 but as the same was not replied to the Appellant filed Special Civil Application No. 3936 of 1983 before this Court.
2.2 However, during pendency of the said petition, the Appellant received a letter dated 10.11.1983 stating that it was decided to terminate the dealership agreement with the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the said communication, the Appellant filed Civil Suit No. 34 of 1984 before the trial court seeking declaration that the letter dated 10.11.1983 is illegal and improper. The trial court dismissed the said suit. Hence the present appeal is preferred before this Court.
Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent No. 1 did not follow the guidelines as laid down by the Government of India qua punishment in case of detection of offence. He submitted that the trial court has erred in holding that the guidelines as existing on the date of the raid are not applicable to the present case. He submitted that the guidelines are issued by Government of India and are binding upon all the Government undertakings of which the Respondent No. 1 is one.
3.1 Mr. Shah submitted that in the said guidelines it is clear that for the first offence of detected adulteration, supply of products should be stopped for 15 days. The Appellant had suffered the stoppage of supply for 90 days before it was restored. He submitted that therefore assuming without admitting that he had committed breach, he had been amply punished for the same and that the double punishment of termination of agreement is too excessive and had brought about the economic demise of the Appellant.
Mr. Chudgar, learned advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 1 Company supported the order of the court below. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the amended guidelines existing at the time of the cancellation of agreement and submitted that No. illegality is committed by the Respondent Company.
4.1 Mr. Chudgar further submitted that a Committee was constituted by the Respondent No. 1 which carried out an impartial and dispassionate inquiry and came to the conclusion that there was violation of various clauses of the contractual agreement. He submitted that there is not allegation made by the Appellant against the review committee regarding the perversity of the findings of the review committee, if any.
This Court has heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record including the impugned order. The trial court has framed issues vide Ex. 46 of which issues No. 6 & 7 read as under:
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the order passed by the Defendant No. 1 with regard to cancellation of authorisation/agreement vide order dated 10.11.1983 with regard to supply of petrol, diesel and oil by Defendant No. 1 is illegal, wrongful, malafide and without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction as prayed for in para 16-B of the plaint.
From the records it is borne out that the Food Controller had sent the samples of the petrol and diesel taken from the Appellant''s petrol pump after it was raided on 30.03.1982 to the Chemical Analyst and the Chemical Analyst had submitted a report on 03.05.1982 the said sample of petrol did not confirm to the prescribed standards and that the same was adulterated. The sample of diesel was not found adulterated. The licence of the Appellant was suspended for 90 days and a letter at Ex. 85 was also written to the Respondent No. 2 to act accordingly. Pursuant to the order of this Court considering the representation of the Appellant, the Respondent No. 1 had appointed a Committee to review the matter and to submit its recommendation. The Committee visited the pump of the Appellant for investigation, took statements from the persons concerned, heard the Appellant and thereafter submitted a report to the Joint Manager (Oil). The Committee came to the conclusion that by permitting adulteration/contamination of the petrol supplied by the Respondent No. 1 Company, the Appellant had committed breach of Clause 9(a) of the dealership agreement. It also concluded that by permitting sale of HSD after 31.07.1981 without having requisite licence the Appellant committed breach of Clause 9(g) of the said agreement. The Committee therefore thought it fit to have the agreement terminated.
It is required to be noted that as per Clause 5 of Chapter v. of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines produced at Ex. 139 which deals with prevention of adulteration at retail outlets ? checks -action to be taken if the sample is certified to be adulterated after laboratory tests a show cause notice should be served on the dealer. If the explanation of the dealer is not satisfactory, the dealership should be terminated. Chapter VI Clause 3 qua suspension of supply to the R.O for 15 days is only with regard to Lubes. It is required to be noted that the amendment carried out to the said guidelines which was circulated to all Regional Offices under circular No. 62 of 1982 dated 13.11.1982 which is also a part of Ex. 139 mentions that in case of proven adulteration even for the first offence, the dealership would be terminated if the sample fails in the laboratory tests, supplies of all products to the concerned retail outlet should be suspended immediately and a detailed investigation should be conducted thereafter. The details of the investigation alongwith the recommendation should be forwarded to the Head Office for further action at their end.
The Appellant''s pump though was raided on 30.03.1982, when the order of cancellation of dealership was passed in November 1983, the amended guidelines were in force and therefore it cannot be said that the Respondent No. 1 committed any breach of the guidelines. The trial court has given detailed reasonings for holding the issues No. 6 & 7 in the negative. It is required to be noted that the Appellant was given a thorough hearing by the Committee pursuant to the opportunity of filing reply to the show cause notices issued. It cannot be said that the Appellant was not heard. The Appellant was also selling HSD without licence after 31.07.1981. Moreover, as per Section 20 of the Petroleum Act, 1934 the sample re-testing should be demanded within seven days from the date on which the owner of the petroleum receives intimation of the result of the test which is not done in the instant case. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the court below.
In the premises aforesaid, appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that the other contract of service center with the Appellant shall not be affected by the dismissal of this appeal as the said contract is an independent contract. The dismissal of the present appeal shall not entitle the Respondent No. 1 ? Company to discontinue the said other contract. No. costs.