M/S Sardar Baldev Singh And Co. Thru. Prop.Sri Karamjeet Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thru. Executive Director And Ors.

A.F.R.
Reserved on :19.5.2026
Delivered on :6.7.2026
Neutral Citation No. -
2026:AHC-LKO:43245
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 22251 of 2018
M/s Sardar Baldev Singh and Co. Thru. Prop.Sri Karamjeet Singh
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thru. Executive Director and Ors.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Radhika Singh, Richa Mishra, Tushar
Hirwani
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ratnesh Chandra, Manish Jauhari
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner with
Ms. Richa Singh, Advocate and Sri Manish Johari, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by respondent No.3
whereby the retail outlet dealership of the petitioner situated at Tulsipur,
District Balrampur, has been terminated. The petitioner has also assailed
the appellate order dated 15.05.2018 passed by respondent no.2
dismissing the statutory appeal preferred under Clause 8.9 of the
Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as
"MDG-2012").
3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, as pleaded by the
petitioner, are that the petitioner has been running the aforesaid retail
outlet since the year 1973 and claims to have maintained an unblemished
record throughout the tenure of the dealership. According to the
petitioner, at no point of time was any allegation of adulteration, short
delivery or any other malpractice established against him. A dealership

2
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
agreement governing the rights and obligations of the parties came to be
executed on 16.05.2011.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Government
Order dated 02.05.2017, a joint inspection of the retail outlet was
conducted on 10.05.2017 by the authorities concerned. During
inspection, in one Tokheim dispensing unit, certain pulsar cables were
found joined by adhesive tape and a joint was noticed in the Weights and
Measures seal affixed to the motherboard. In another Gilbarco
dispensing unit, the Weights and Measures seal of the pulsar at the MS
unit was found broken. However, according to the inspection report
itself, no additional electronic device, chip or any unauthorized fitting
was found inside either of the dispensing units and no discrepancy in the
quantity of fuel delivered was detected.
5. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation issued a fact-finding letter
dated 02.06.2017 alleging violation of Clauses 5.1.2, 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of
the MDG-2012. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the
allegations. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 13.06.2017 was
issued, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 29.06.2017. The
competent authority, not being satisfied with the explanation furnished
by the petitioner, passed the order dated 04.07.2017 terminating the
dealership. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to
be dismissed on 15.05.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition
has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned
orders are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law inasmuch as they
proceed merely on suspicion without there being any legally admissible
evidence establishing tampering of the dispensing units or manipulation
of fuel delivery. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to
establish the essential ingredients contemplated under Clause 5.1.4 of the
MDG-2012.
7. Elaborating the submissions, learned counsel contends that the
dispensing machines, including their motherboard, pulsar card, pulsar

3
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
cables, seals and other internal components, exclusively belonged to the
respondent Corporation. Their installation, calibration, repairs,
maintenance and sealing were carried out only by the engineers of the
Corporation, its authorized service agencies and officials of the Weights
and Measures Department. The petitioner had neither technical access to
nor control over the internal mechanism of the dispensing units and,
therefore, no presumption of tampering could legally be drawn against
him.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the Tokheim dispensing unit
bearing Serial No. D425A104 was an old machine manufactured in the
year 2003 and was installed at the petitioner's retail outlet in the year
2008 after being shifted from another outlet. It is submitted that the said
machine had repeatedly developed technical defects and had remained
non-functional for considerable periods. The respondent Corporation
itself had undertaken repairs on several occasions. It is further submitted
that even prior to the inspection dated 10.05.2017, the dispensing unit
had remained out of order since 23.03.2017 and complaints in that
regard had already been lodged by the petitioner. The inspection report
itself records that the dispensing unit was not dispensing fuel on the date
of inspection. It is, therefore, contended that there existed neither any
opportunity nor any motive for the petitioner to manipulate a machine
which was admittedly lying defective.
9. Learned counsel next submits that although the inspection team
noticed taped joints in certain pulsar cables and a broken seal in another
dispensing unit, no additional electronic chip, foreign device or
unauthorized fitting was recovered from either of the dispensing units.
Likewise, no short delivery, excess delivery or adulteration of fuel was
detected during inspection. It is urged that in the absence of these
essential features, the respondents could not have concluded that the
dispensing mechanism had been tampered with.
10. It is also contended that much before the inspection, the petitioner
had addressed a written communication dated 28.04.2017 requesting the
respondent Corporation to replace the old and rusted sealing wire. Thus,

4
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
the condition of the seal was already within the knowledge of the
Corporation. According to the petitioner, during inspection the seal was
handled roughly by the inspecting officials, resulting in its breakage,
which was thereafter wrongly attributed to the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
inspection proceedings themselves stood vitiated for non-compliance
with the Government Order dated 02.05.2017 as well as the provisions
of the MDG-2012. It is submitted that the inspection team was not
constituted in accordance with the prescribed procedure; independent
witnesses were not properly associated; mandatory procedure relating to
opening, seizure and resealing of the dispensing units was not followed;
videography of the inspection was not supplied despite repeated
requests; and the recovery memo did not bear the signatures of all
mandatory officials, including representatives of the Original Equipment
Manufacturer and police personnel.
12. It is further submitted that the respondents have relied only on the
presence of joints in the pulsar cable and the condition of the seals to
allege tampering. However, neither of these circumstances, by itself, is
sufficient to conclusively establish that any unauthorized manipulation
or tampering had taken place. In support of the said submission, reliance
has been placed upon the technical opinion furnished by the Department
of Electronics and Communication Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Karnataka, wherein it has been opined that visual inspection
revealing soldering marks, jumper wires or cable joints is insufficient to
conclude tampering unless supported by scientific examination, as such
features may also arise during repairs or maintenance carried out by
authorized personnel.
13. Learned counsel submits that despite seizure of the relevant
components during inspection, neither laboratory testing nor any
conclusive expert examination was undertaken to establish actual
tampering of the dispensing mechanism. According to her, in the absence
of scientific evidence, actual short delivery or recovery of any

5
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
unauthorized electronic device, the impugned orders rest merely upon
conjectures and suspicion and, therefore, deserve to be quashed.
14. In support of the submissions advanced, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments :-
(i) Chairman Indian Oil Corporation and others Vs. M/s Lallite
Filling Centre and another [Special Appeal Defective No.145 of
2026] . Relevant paragraphs 24, 28, 29, 30 and 31 are being quoted as
under :-
"24. The other limb of the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants, touching the merit of the
dispute, if examined, would reveal that Clause 5.1.4
of the MDG refers to an additional/unauthorized
fittings/gears found in dispensing units/tampering
with dispensing units. It further provides that any
mechanism or fitting or gear found fitted in the
dispensing unit which is likely to manipulate
delivery or any addition, removal, replacement or
manipulation of any part of the dispensing units
including any mechanism, gear, micro-processor
chip, electronic parts/OEM Software, if found will
be deemed to be tampering of the dispensing units.
28. The learned Single Judge also noticed that even
earlier the respondent had complained regarding
irregular functioning of the said dispensing unit and
it was found that the said unit was making excess
delivery. In such circumstances, no benefit could
accrue to the respondent and it is admittedly, not a
case of short dispensing of fuel. The only unit which
was said to have been tampered was actually a non-
functional unit from which no sales were carried
out.
29. The learned Single Judge also noticed that the
inspection of the outlet was carried out on
08.06.2017 whereas the dealership was terminated
on 15.07.2017. It also noticed that at the time of
termination, the appellants had not even obtained

6
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
the report from its Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM). The report of the OEM was
obtained by the appellants on 18.12.2017, almost
after 5 months of the termination.
30. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that
the basic premise upon which the dealership was
terminated was based on tampering of dispensing
unit which was clearly arbitrary for the reason that
the Unit which was found to be tampered was
already non-functional, from which no sales were
made. Coupled with the fact that the other units
were all found to be intact with the seals of the
Weights and Measures Department. Without even
waiting for the report of the OEM, the termination
order was passed which clearly amounted to pre-
judging the issue and thus on the basis of such
findings, the writ petition was allowed. It also
considered the earlier litigation inter se the parties
and thereafter taking a holistic view, it allowed the
writ petition.
31. This Court having considered the aforesaid
judgment find that the appellants could not dispute
the fact that the seals of the Weights and Measures
Department was found intact. The appellant also
could not dispute that merely upon the basis of the
inspection report, the agreement was terminated
while the report from the OEM came almost 5
months thereafter."
(ii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Modern Service Station
[Special Appeal No.456 of 2023] . Relevant paragraphs 24 to 27 are
being quoted as under :-
"24. Having considered the rival submissions of the
parties, we are definitely of the view that the
learned Single Judge while dealing with the case of
the petitioner correctly came to the conclusion that
when a particular defence which was taken by the
petitioner was not considered then that itself

7
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
becomes a violation of the principles of natural
justice. In the instant case, the petitioner had taken
a definite stand that when on 16.9.2020, the
engineer of M/s. GVR Mr. Girendra had opened the
unit and had broken the seal then the dispensing
unit was no longer in the control of the
petitioner/respondents and there was every
possibility of the seal being tampered and the unit
being fiddled with by the engineer of M/s. GVR Mr.
Girendra. When the defence of the petitioner was
not considered the learned Single Judge correctly
came to the conclusion that the petitioner was
wronged inasmuch as there was a definite violation
of principles of natural justice. Also the learned
Single Judge rightly put an end to the matter and
did not remand the case for a fresh appraisal. He,
therefore, rightly relied upon the decision in M/s
Chaudhary Filling Point, Kazipur through its Prop.
And another vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy.
Food & Civil Supplies and Ors. reported in 2019
(3) ADJ 345 the relevant paragraph no. 39 is being
reproduced here as under:
"39. As seen from the reading of the impugned
order, the only reason assigned for being not
satisfied with the explanation offered by the
petitioner was that there was tampering in the DU
and pulsar card contains certain soldering marks.
However, what was not considered by the competent
authority was that at what point of time this
unauthorized tampering/soldering was done in the
dispensing unit and how the dealer is manipulating
the distribution of fuel. No material, much less
credible one has been brought on record by the
respondents to disclose the unauthorized access to
the equipment by the petitioner. It was specific stand
of the petitioner that periodically the Weights and
Measurements Department officials inspected the
seals and they were found to be intact. Further
more, what is the impact on tampering/soldering in

8
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
delivery unit is not disclosed. How the dealer can
manipulate delivery of fuel by inserting such unit is
not explained. The only objective of a dealer to
tamper with dispensing unit is to manipulate
delivery of fuel. In this case, the delivery of fuel was
found to be accurate prior to checking of unit and
after the checking. Furthermore, the defence of the
petitioner that it is possible that the supplier himself
might have done soldering while repairing for
proper functioning of the unit by supplier himself
cannot be brushed aside."
25. This Appellate Court, thus, finds that when the
main defence of the petitioner that i.e. the
tampering was, in fact, a result of the act of the
Original Equipment Manufacturer and that the
petitioner had no hand in it was not considered then
definitely the petitioner’s interest was
prejudiced.
26. We are thus of the view that the writ petition was
rightly allowed and the matter was also rightly not
remanded back. This we say as the appellants
definitely had not been able to bring on record any
fact by which it could be ascertained that the dealer
had an authorized access to the equipment after the
M/s GVR engineer had opened the dispensing unit
and had fiddled with the motherboard and that the
dealer was in any way responsible for the
tampering etc.
27. For the reasons stated above, the Special
Appeal stands dismissed."
(iii) M/s Aliganj Kisan Seva Kendra and another Vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and others [Writ-C No.16998 of 2023] . Relevant
paragraphs 40 and 45 to 48 are being quoted as under :-
"40. For appreciating the controversy involved in
the writ petition, it would be apt to quote relevant
clauses 16, 44 & 58(m) of the dealership
agreement, which is as follows:-

9
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
"16. No repairs to the outfit shall be done by the
Dealer unless preciously authorized by the
Corporation in writing. The Dealer shall not
interfere with or attempt to adjust the outfit or any
apart thereof but shall notify the Corporation
immediately of the necessary of any repair or
adjustment and thereby ensure that the outfit is in
proper working order and delivering full and
proper, measure at all times. The Dealer shall not
operate the outfit while it is out of order.
44. The Dealer undertakes faithfully and promptly
to carry out, observe and perform all direction or
rules given or made from time to time by the
Corporation for the proper carrying on of the
Dealership of the Corporation. The Dealer shall
scrupulously observe and comply with all laws,
rules regulations and requisitions of the
Central/State Governments and of all authorities
appointed by there or either of them including in
particular the Chief Controller of Explosive,
Government of India, and/or any other local
authority with regard to the storage and sale of
such petroleum products.
58(m). If the Dealer shall either by himself or by his
servants or agents commit or suffered to be
committed any act which in the opinion of the
General Manager of the Corporation for the time
being in NOIDA whose decision shall be final, is
prejudicial to the Interest or good name of the
Corporation or its products, the General Manager
shall not be bound to give reasons for such
decision."
45. It is also evident from the perusal of the
impugned order that it is admitted to the parties
that the dispensing unit was not a new unit. It is
also not in dispute that the dispensing unit installed
at the petitioners' retail outlet was earlier used by
Quality Retail Outlet and in the running condition,

10
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
the same was installed at the petitioners' retail
outlet, which was dispensing oil till the date of
survey, i.e., 06.05.2017 without any discrepancy.
46. It is admitted fact between the parties that the
dispensing unit installed at the petitioners' retail
outlet was not new and it is also not in dispute that
before reinstalation of dispensing unit of the
petitioner site any certificate was issue certifying
the fact that the mother board was not tampered or
any repair was being undertaken by the
Corporation or its agencies. Further before
reinstalling the dispensing unit at the petitioners'
retail outlet a certificate was ever issued duly
certifying the fact that control card was in
confermity with the MIDOC standard design.
47. It is also not in dispute that at the time of
survey, the dispensing unit was not in working
condition or it was not dispensing oil. Therefore,
negative onus cannot be fastened upon the
petitioners as alleged by the Corporation.
48. Bare reading of the relevant clauses of the
dealership agreement and the Marketing Discipline
Guidelines, presumption will be drawn against the
petitioners that some manipulation has been done,
but the presumption has to be proved by the
Corporation by cogent materials to show that there
was irregularity in dispensing unit, but the report
submitted by the OEM does not say so. In absence
of such finding against the petitioner, the impugned
termination order cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law."
(iv) M/s Prakash Automobiles Indian Oil Dealer Vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. [Writ-C No.558 of 2020] . Relevant paragraphs 24,
25 and 28 are being quoted as under :-
"24. It is also relevant to notice that the only basis
for passing the impugned orders is the report by the
OEM and as noticed above, the report of the OEM

11
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
is also inconclusive for the reason the OEM also
could not state with certainty that the said alien
part as detected in the pulsar card was responsible
for any short delivery. The report merely draws a
conclusion but it does not indicate how and what
tests were done to arrive at such a conclusion, apart
from the fact that the said report of the OEM was
not even put or given to the petitioner before
passing of the impugned order of termination.
25. Learned counsel for the IOC could not dispute
that the show cause notice was based merely on the
basis of the inspection report and at that point of
time, the report of the OEM was not there and the
show cause notice also did not indicate that the
Corporation would be relying upon the said report
and even if they proposed to do so then it was a duty
of the Corporation to have provided the copy of the
report to the petitioner prior to the passing of the
order to enable the petitioner to meet the reasons or
contest the same and having not done so it has
resulted in deprivation of an opportunity of hearing
especially when the proposed action was in the
nature of termination which impacted the rights of
the petitioner to run the dealership which was a
right to do business and earn livelihood.
28. It will be worthwhile to mention that in a similar
matter, a coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s
Mishra Automobiles Vs. Union of India and
others;2024:AHC-LKO:53503 and dealing with
similar issue and relying upon Clause 5.1.4 of the
MDG, in paragraphs 14 to 18 has held as under:-
"14. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that
when any mechanisms, fitting, gear found fitted in
dispensing unit with the intention of manipulation of
delivery would amount to invite proceedings under
the said sections and lead to cancellation of the
license. Therefore, from a bare reading of Clause
5.1.4 of the MDG Guidelines, it is clear that any

12
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
mechanism or fitting in the dispensing unit should
result in manipulation of delivery or such additional
fitting should at least the capable of manipulating
the delivery. There is no dispute with regard to the
fact that the foreign component was in fact found
on the pulsar cards but the dispute in the present
case is only with regard to the fact that as to
whether discovery of a foreign component on the
pulsar card would automatically lead to the
conclusion that same has been installed with an
intention of manipulation of delivery. In the present
case, the peculiar facts are that seals of the
dispensing units were intact at the time inspection.
The foreign component found in the pulsar card has
been reported by the OEM. Thee is no clear finding
that such foreign component would led to the short
supply of diesel in its original report dated
11.05.2017 or in subsequent clarification issued on
17.05.2017.
15. To return a finding with regard to the intention
of manipulating the delivery, the basic fact which
has to be established that the installation of the
foreign component had in fact led to manipulating
the delivery meaning thereby that on installation of
foreign component on the pulsar cards, the
dispensing unit had dispensed lesser quantity of fuel
than it was supposed to dispense.
16. We do not agree with the submission of the
counsel for the respondent that mere finding of the
foreign component of the pulsar cards is sufficient
in itself to come to a conclusion that the same has
been done with an intention to manipulate the
delivery. In case there is manipulation in delivery
meaning thereby short supply of the fuel dispensed
from the dispensing unit is a question of fact and
can not be assumed. Only when it is established that
the dispensing unit had in fact dispensed lesser
quantity of fuel, coupled with the fact that foreign

13
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
component was found in the pulsar card, can a
person be held responsible for violating provisions
of 5.1.4 of the MDG Guidelines and consequential
cancellation of his license can be done. Apart from
finding a foreign component on the Pulsar Cards
there should have been categorical finding with
regard to the intention to manipulate the delivery.
17. On perusal of the relevant provision i.e. 5.1.4 of
MDG Guidelines, it is found to be substantially
penal in nature and its essential ingredients, prima
facie, consist of:
(1) The finding of the foreign objects in the
dispensing unit, which is only a ground for inquiry
and inspection.
(2) Intention of manipulating the delivery.
Mere presence of foreign elements does not ipso
facto show intention unless there is evidence to
show that the foreign components are capable of or
in fact affecting the fair dispensation of fuel.
In the present case, there is no evidence with regard
to the second necessary ingredient, which is
'intention of manipulating the delivery' and also the
inquiry fell short of returning any finding as to
show any such manipulation. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot be said to have violated 5.1.4 of
the MDG Guidelines.
18. In the aforesaid circumstances, firstly, it is not
the case of the respondent Oil Company that there
was any shortfall of the delivery, coupled with the
fact that even the OEM has never reported, the
result of the foreign body attached to the pulsar
card and secondly, the benefit of doubt of the seal
being intact during the time of inspection has to be
given to the petitioner as the foreign component
cannot be inserted without breaking the seal of the
dispensing unit. Counsel for the respondent also
could not confirm as to whether the foreign

14
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
component can be inserted on pulsar card without
breaking the seals. Therefore, reading the
inspection report dated 05.05.2017 wherein in
paragraph 2, it has clearly been found that the
delivery was found to be correct, coupled with the
fact that in paragraph-5, it has been stated that
seals were broken in presence of the inspecting
team leads to have irrebuttable conclusion that the
seals were intact and there was no short supply of
the fuel and consequently, in the aforesaid
circumstances, it cannot be concluded that there
was intention to manipulate the delivery, and hence
any violation of Clause 5.4.1. of the MDG
Guidelines.""
15. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Chairman,
Indian Oil Corporation (Supra), wherein it has been held that Clause
5.1.4 of the MDG contemplates tampering by way of unauthorized
fittings or manipulation capable of affecting delivery. The Division
Bench held that where the dispensing unit alleged to have been tampered
with was itself non-functional and no short delivery was detected,
termination of dealership merely on suspicion could not be sustained. It
was further held that passing the termination order without even
awaiting the report of the Original Equipment Manufacturer amounted to
pre-judging the issue.
16. Reliance has also been placed upon another Division Bench
judgment in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others versus M/s
Modern Service Station (Supra), wherein the Court held that failure to
consider the specific defence of the dealer amounts to violation of the
principles of natural justice. The Division Bench further held that unless
cogent material is brought on record to establish that the dealer had
unauthorized access to the dispensing unit after it had been handled by
the Corporation's engineers or authorized personnel, liability cannot be
fastened upon the dealer.

15
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
17. It is submitted that mere soldering marks or tampering noticed in
the dispensing unit do not by themselves establish manipulation unless it
is shown when such tampering occurred, how the dealer gained
unauthorized access to the equipment and how such alteration affected
the delivery of fuel. It was observed that where delivery was found to be
accurate and no material existed connecting the dealer with the alleged
tampering, the extreme penalty of termination could not be justified.
18. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment in M/s
Aliganj Kisan Seva Kendra (Supra), wherein this Court held that where
the dispensing unit supplied by the Corporation was an old or previously
used machine and no certificate regarding its integrity prior to
installation was produced, the burden could not automatically be shifted
upon the dealer. It was further held that if the dispensing unit was itself
non-functional, adverse presumption against the dealer could not be
drawn merely on the basis of the condition of the machine, unless
supported by cogent material establishing manipulation.
19. Reliance has lastly been placed upon the judgment of this Court in
M/s Prakash Automobiles (Supra), wherein it was held that an
inconclusive OEM report, which neither established that the foreign
component resulted in short delivery nor disclosed the basis of its
conclusion, could not furnish sufficient material for terminating a
dealership. The Court further held that Clause 5.1.4 of the MDG requires
not merely the existence of a foreign component but also material
demonstrating its capability or intention to manipulate delivery and that
mere presence of a foreign object, without proof of its effect on fuel
delivery, is insufficient to sustain termination.
20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be
dismissed. According to him, both the termination order as well as the
appellate order have been passed strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the MDG-2012, the dealership agreement and after
affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

16
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
21. Learned counsel submits that during the inspection conducted on
10.05.2017, serious irregularities were detected at the petitioner's retail
outlet. The Weights and Measures seal of the pulsar unit was found
broken and a joint secured by tape was noticed in the pulsar cable,
constituting critical irregularities under the MDG-2012. Consequently,
sale from the concerned dispensing unit was immediately suspended
and, after completion of the fact-finding inquiry and consideration of the
petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the competent authority
rightly terminated the dealership.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the explanation
furnished by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice was duly
considered by the competent authority but was found wholly
unsatisfactory. It is contended that the irregularities detected during
inspection were of a critical nature attracting the provisions of the
Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 and, therefore, in exercise of
powers conferred under Clauses 15, 16, 19 and 44 read with Clause 58
of the Dealership Agreement, the competent authority rightly terminated
the dealership by order dated 04.07.2017.
23. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter preferred a
statutory appeal under Clause 8.9 of the MDG-2012. The appellate
authority afforded the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing on
27.03.2018, examined the memorandum of appeal, the written
submissions and the entire material available on record and thereafter, by
a reasoned order dated 15.05.2018, affirmed the order of termination. It
is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has already availed of the
statutory remedy and no procedural infirmity survives.
24. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner's reliance upon his
alleged satisfactory conduct since the year 1973 is wholly misconceived.
According to him, past conduct cannot wipe out or dilute the effect of a
critical irregularity detected during inspection. Similarly, the annual
stamping and calibration certificates issued by the Weights and Measures
Department merely certify the condition of the dispensing units at the

17
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
time of inspection and do not rule out subsequent tampering or
manipulation.
25. It is further submitted that during inspection a joint secured by
adhesive tape was found in the pulsar cable. As per the opinion of the
representative of the Original Equipment Manufacturer, no such joint
ought to exist in the cable. Consequently, the pulsar unit was sealed and
handed over to the Supplies Inspector for further examination. It is
submitted that although no additional electronic device or fitting was
noticed, the existence of the joint itself constituted a serious irregularity
and the same was duly recorded in the inspection report.
26. Learned counsel further submits that a joint was also noticed in
the sealing wire of the Weights and Measures seal affixed to the
motherboard, thereby clearly indicating interference with the sealing
mechanism. According to him, after considering the inspection report,
the reports submitted by the Government officers, the show cause notice,
the petitioner's reply and the grounds raised in appeal, the appellate
authority has recorded a categorical finding that the dealership had
rightly been terminated.
27. It is further contended that the termination order was issued only
after obtaining the approval of the competent authority, namely, the State
Head (Executive Director, UPSO-I), and, therefore, the decision-making
process does not suffer from any procedural irregularity. It is also
submitted that Clause 1.4.2 of the MDG-2012 casts a continuing
obligation upon every dealer to carry out daily visual inspection of the
dispensing units, immediately report any broken Weights and Measures
seal to the Oil Company and ensure proper maintenance of the
dispensing units. According to the respondents, the petitioner failed to
discharge these obligations and is consequently responsible for the
irregularities detected during inspection.
28. Learned counsel lastly submits that the allegations made by the
petitioner regarding violation of the Government Order dated
02.05.2017, procedural lapses during inspection, absence of tampering

18
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
and non-compliance of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines are wholly
baseless and unsupported by any material on record. It is urged that both
the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have considered
each of the petitioner's objections and have recorded concurrent findings
of fact. Such findings, according to the respondents, do not warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
29. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material brought on record.
30. The controversy in the present case essentially revolves around the
interpretation and application of Clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing
Discipline Guidelines, 2012 and whether the material collected during
inspection constituted sufficient evidence to establish tampering of the
dispensing units so as to justify the extreme penalty of termination of the
dealership.
31. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate
to notice Clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012. The
said clause treats as a critical irregularity any additional or unauthorized
fitting, gear or mechanism found in the dispensing unit which is likely to
manipulate delivery. It further provides that any addition, removal,
replacement or manipulation of any part of the dispensing unit, including
its electronic components, software or microprocessor chip, shall be
deemed to amount to tampering of the dispensing unit.
32. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision shows that every
irregularity noticed in a dispensing unit does not automatically amount
to tampering within the meaning of Clause 5.1.4. The provision
contemplates unauthorized manipulation of the dispensing mechanism or
such alteration which is capable of affecting the quantity of fuel
delivered through the dispensing unit. Since termination of dealership
visits the dealer with serious civil consequences, the ingredients of the
clause must be established by cogent and reliable material.

19
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
33. It is well settled that although the scope of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution does not permit this Court to re-
appreciate evidence as an appellate authority, the Court is nevertheless
required to examine whether the findings recorded by the authorities are
based upon some legally admissible material, whether the decision-
making process is fair, and whether the conclusion arrived at is so
arbitrary or unreasonable that it warrants interference.
34. In Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation (Supra), the Division Bench
of this Court examined the scope of Clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing
Discipline Guidelines. The Court held that the clause contemplates
unauthorized fittings or mechanisms capable of manipulating delivery. It
was noticed that although certain irregularities had been detected, the
dispensing unit itself was non-functional and no short delivery had been
established. The Division Bench further held that termination without
even awaiting the report of the Original Equipment Manufacturer
amounted to pre-judging the issue and could not be sustained.
35. The aforesaid judgment assumes significance in the present case
because the inspection report itself records that the Tokheim dispensing
unit was not dispensing fuel on the date of inspection. The petitioner has
consistently asserted that the machine had remained defective since
23.03.2017 and that complaints regarding its malfunction had already
been lodged with the respondent-Corporation. These assertions have not
been specifically disputed by placing any material to the contrary.
36. Equally relevant is the judgment of the Division Bench in Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. and others versus M/s Modern Service Station . The
Court held that failure of the competent authority to consider the specific
defence raised by the dealer amounts to violation of the principles of
natural justice. The Division Bench further observed that unless there
exists material demonstrating unauthorized access of the dealer to the
dispensing unit after it had been handled by the Corporation's engineers
or authorized personnel, liability cannot be fastened merely on
assumptions.

20
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
37. While affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the
Division Bench approved the principles laid down in M/s Chaudhary
Filling Point , wherein it was held that mere existence of soldering marks
or signs of repair on the dispensing unit does not establish manipulation
unless the respondents are able to demonstrate when such tampering
took place, how the dealer gained unauthorized access to the equipment
and, more importantly, how such alteration resulted in manipulation of
fuel delivery.
38. In M/s Aliganj Kisan Seva Kendra versus Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. , this Court also dealt with a case where the dispensing unit supplied
by the Corporation was an old machine previously installed elsewhere.
The Court held that where no certificate regarding the integrity of the
dispensing unit prior to installation was produced by the Corporation and
the dispensing unit itself was not functioning properly, adverse
presumption could not be drawn against the dealer merely because
certain irregularities were noticed during inspection. The burden
continued to remain upon the Corporation to establish the alleged
manipulation by cogent evidence.
39. Likewise, in M/s Prakash Automobiles versus Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. , this Court reiterated that mere presence of a foreign
component or any alteration in the dispensing unit is not sufficient to
establish violation of Clause 5.1.4 unless it is further shown that such
component was capable of affecting delivery or had actually resulted in
manipulation of the quantity of fuel dispensed. The Court also
emphasized that an expert report, if relied upon, must be supplied to the
dealer so as to enable him to effectively meet the allegations.
40. The consistent principle emerging from the aforesaid decisions is
that proceedings under Clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing Discipline
Guidelines are substantially penal in nature. Consequently, the burden
lies upon the Corporation to establish by credible material that the
dispensing unit had in fact been tampered with in a manner capable of
manipulating fuel delivery and that such manipulation could reasonably
be attributed to the dealer.

21
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
41. It is in the light of the aforesaid legal principles that the evidence
available on record and the findings recorded by the disciplinary
authority as well as the appellate authority are required to be examined.
42. The principal question which arises for consideration before this
Court is whether the material collected during the inspection dated
10.05.2017 constituted sufficient evidence to establish tampering of the
dispensing units so as to justify termination of the petitioner's dealership
under the provisions of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 and
the Dealership Agreement.
43. From a perusal of the inspection report, the termination order
dated 04.07.2017 and the appellate order dated 15.05.2018, it is evident
that the respondents have principally relied upon three circumstances,
namely, (i) taped joints found in three pulsar cables of the Tokheim
dispensing unit, (ii) a joint found in the Weights and Measures seal
affixed to the motherboard of the said dispensing unit, and (iii) the
broken Weights and Measures seal of the pulsar in the Gilbarco
dispensing unit.
44. Equally significant is the fact that both the disciplinary authority
and the appellate authority have themselves recorded that no additional
fitting, chip, electronic device or unauthorized gear was found inside
either of the dispensing units. The termination order specifically records
that although no additional fittings were found during inspection, the cut
in the pulsar cable established that it was made to connect additional
fittings. The appellate authority has reiterated the same reasoning.
45. The aforesaid finding, in the considered opinion of this Court, is
based upon an assumption rather than upon any technical material.
Neither the termination order nor the appellate order refers to any expert
opinion demonstrating that the taped joints in the pulsar cable were
actually connected with manipulation of the dispensing mechanism or
that such joints were capable of affecting the quantity of fuel delivered
through the dispensing unit.

22
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
46. The respondents have repeatedly relied upon the opinion of the
OEM engineer that there should not be any joint in the pulsar cable.
However, the record does not disclose that the OEM ever opined that the
taped joints had resulted in short delivery of fuel or that they were
capable of manipulating delivery. Merely because an OEM engineer
opined that there ought not to be a joint in the cable cannot, by itself,
constitute proof of tampering within the meaning of Clause 5.1.4 of the
MDG-2012.
47. The respondents have also not disputed that no discrepancy in
delivery of fuel was noticed during the inspection. There is no allegation
in the inspection report that either short delivery or excess delivery was
detected. Likewise, there is no allegation of adulteration of fuel. The
absence of any discrepancy in delivery assumes considerable
significance, particularly when the allegation is one of tampering with
the dispensing mechanism.
48. The petitioner has consistently asserted that the Tokheim
dispensing unit was manufactured in the year 2003, had been shifted
from another retail outlet and was installed at the petitioner's outlet in the
year 2008. The respondents have not disputed these facts. On the
contrary, both the termination order and the appellate order acknowledge
that the dispensing unit was an old machine. The respondents have
merely observed that the age of the dispensing unit is immaterial.
49. The petitioner had also specifically pleaded that the said
dispensing unit had remained non-functional since 23.03.2017 and
complaints regarding its malfunction had already been lodged with the
Corporation. The appellate authority has itself noticed this defence.
However, the said defence has been rejected merely by observing that
the recovery of the taped joint was sufficient irrespective of whether the
dispensing unit was functional or not.
50. This Court finds that such reasoning overlooks an important
factual aspect. If the dispensing unit had admittedly remained out of
order and was not dispensing fuel on the date of inspection, the

23
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
respondents were required to establish, by cogent technical evidence, as
to how the alleged irregularity was intended to manipulate delivery or
confer any advantage upon the dealer. Neither of the impugned orders
deals with this aspect.
51. Another aspect which cannot be ignored is that the Dealership
Agreement itself provides that repairs, calibration and maintenance of
the dispensing units are to be undertaken by the Corporation or its
authorized agencies. The petitioner has consistently pleaded that he was
neither technically competent nor authorized to open the dispensing units
or interfere with their internal mechanism. This defence has not been
examined with the degree of scrutiny which the seriousness of the
consequence demanded.
52. The respondents have sought to fasten liability upon the petitioner
by relying upon Clause 1.4.2 of the MDG-2012, which obligates the
dealer to conduct daily visual inspection of the Weights and Measures
seals and immediately report any irregularity. Undoubtedly, such an
obligation exists. However, the breach of a duty to report a visible
irregularity cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the dealer
himself tampered with the dispensing mechanism.
53. Significantly, the petitioner has placed reliance upon a written
communication dated 28.04.2017 requesting replacement of the old and
rusted sealing wire. If such a communication had indeed been submitted
prior to the inspection, the respondents were required to examine its
effect while considering the allegation relating to the broken seal.
Neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority has dealt
with this contention except by observing that it was an afterthought.
54. The Court further notices that the petitioner had specifically relied
upon the technical opinion of the Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Karnataka, wherein it has been opined that visual inspection revealing
soldering marks, cable joints or jumper wires cannot by itself establish
tampering unless supported by scientific examination. The impugned

24
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
orders are conspicuously silent on this material, although the said
opinion directly addressed the technical issue involved in the present
case.
55. Equally, despite seizure of the relevant components, no laboratory
analysis or scientific examination has been brought on record
demonstrating that the taped joints or the alleged irregularities had any
nexus with manipulation of the dispensing mechanism. The respondents
have proceeded on the premise that because a taped joint ought not to
exist, it necessarily follows that the same was introduced for
manipulating delivery. Such an inference, in the absence of supporting
technical evidence, cannot be accepted as a substitute for proof.
56. The appellate authority has observed that recovery of three pulsar
cables with joints "amounts to tampering with the dispensing unit." In
the opinion of this Court, such conclusion is merely a reiteration of the
allegation and not the result of any independent analysis. The appellate
authority has neither discussed the essential ingredients of Clause 5.1.4
nor recorded any finding that the alleged irregularity was capable of
affecting delivery or that the petitioner had unauthorized access to the
internal mechanism of the dispensing unit. The appellate order,
therefore, substantially affirms the disciplinary authority without
independently addressing the core issues raised in appeal.
57. The controversy involved in the present case is no longer res
integra. This Court, as well as the Division Bench, has on several
occasions interpreted the scope of Clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing
Discipline Guidelines, 2012 and has consistently held that the drastic
consequence of termination of dealership can follow only when the
Corporation establishes, on the basis of cogent material, that the
dispensing unit had been tampered with in a manner contemplated by the
said clause.
58. In Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation, New Delhi and others
versus M/s Lallite Filling Centre , the Division Bench examined an
identical controversy where the dispensing unit alleged to have been

25
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
tampered with was itself lying non-functional and no discrepancy in fuel
delivery had been detected. The Division Bench observed that Clause
5.1.4 contemplates additional or unauthorized fittings or manipulation
capable of affecting delivery. The Court further held that termination of
dealership merely on the basis of suspicion, particularly where the
dispensing unit was not in operation and no short delivery had been
established, could not be sustained in law.
59. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of
the present case. Here also, the respondents do not dispute that the
Tokheim dispensing unit had remained out of order prior to the
inspection and was not dispensing fuel on the date of inspection. More
importantly, no discrepancy in delivery was found and no additional
electronic fitting or device was recovered. Thus, the factual foundation
of the present case is substantially similar to the one considered by the
Division Bench.
60. Equally important is the observation of the Division Bench in
Lallite Filling Centre that the Corporation ought not to prejudge the
issue without obtaining reliable technical material. Although the
respondents have referred to the opinion of the OEM representative,
neither the termination order nor the appellate order discloses any
scientific opinion establishing that the taped joints in the pulsar cable
had actually affected or were capable of affecting the quantity of fuel
delivered.
61. The Division Bench in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others
versus M/s Modern Service Station reiterated another equally important
principle, namely, that failure to consider the specific defence raised by
the dealer amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. The
Court further held that unless credible material exists to demonstrate
unauthorized access of the dealer to the dispensing unit after it had been
handled by the Corporation's engineers or authorized personnel, liability
cannot be fastened merely on assumptions.

26
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
62. In the present case, the petitioner specifically pleaded that the
dispensing units belonged to the Corporation, that all repairs and
maintenance were undertaken by the Corporation through its authorized
agencies, that the Tokheim dispensing unit was an old second-hand
machine repeatedly repaired by the Corporation, and that no additional
device was recovered during inspection. Although these submissions
have been noticed in the impugned orders, there is no meaningful
discussion as to how, despite these facts, the respondents concluded that
the petitioner himself had manipulated the dispensing unit.
63. The Division Bench in Modern Service Station approved the
earlier judgment in M/s Chaudhary Filling Point , wherein it was held
that the mere existence of soldering marks or signs of repair does not
establish manipulation unless it is further shown when such tampering
took place, how the dealer gained unauthorized access to the dispensing
unit and in what manner the alleged tampering affected delivery of fuel.
The Court also observed that where delivery was found to be correct, the
allegation of manipulation cannot be accepted merely on suspicion.
64. These observations fully support the petitioner's contention in the
present case. The respondents have not brought on record any material to
indicate as to when the taped joints came into existence, whether they
were introduced during any repair undertaken by the Corporation or its
authorized agencies, or how the petitioner gained unauthorized access to
the internal mechanism of the dispensing unit. The entire finding rests
upon the assumption that the existence of taped joints necessarily
establishes tampering.
65. This Court also finds considerable force in the ratio laid down in
M/s Aliganj Kisan Seva Kendra versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. In
the said case also, the dispensing unit supplied by the Corporation was
an old machine which had earlier been installed elsewhere. The Court
held that unless the Corporation establishes that the dispensing unit was
free from defects or unauthorized alterations at the time of installation,
adverse inference cannot automatically be drawn against the dealer
merely because certain irregularities are noticed subsequently.

27
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
66. In the present case, the respondents themselves admit that the
Tokheim dispensing unit was manufactured in the year 2003 and was
installed at the petitioner's retail outlet in the year 2008 after being
shifted from another location. No material has been produced to
demonstrate that before its installation at the petitioner's outlet the
Corporation had certified the integrity of its motherboard, pulsar cables
or electronic components. This aspect assumes significance particularly
when the petitioner has consistently pleaded that the machine had
undergone repeated repairs.
67. The judgment in M/s Prakash Automobiles versus Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. also lends support to the petitioner's case. This Court
held therein that mere recovery of a foreign component or any alteration
in the dispensing unit does not automatically establish violation of
Clause 5.1.4. What is further required to be established is that the alleged
alteration was capable of manipulating delivery or had actually resulted
in manipulation of fuel supply. It was also held that an inconclusive
expert report cannot form the sole basis for terminating a dealership.
68. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, this Court
finds that neither the OEM opinion nor the findings recorded by the
respondents explain the technical impact of the taped joints. The
respondents have merely stated that there should not have been a joint in
the pulsar cable. They have not established by any scientific or technical
evidence that the alleged joint either manipulated or was capable of
manipulating the quantity of fuel delivered.
69. The respondents have repeatedly emphasized that Clause 5.1.2
read with Clause 8.2 of the MDG-2012 permits termination even where
delivery is found correct, provided the Weights and Measures seal is
found tampered. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that
tampering with a statutory seal is a serious irregularity. However, before
invoking the penal consequences flowing from the said clause, the
Corporation must first establish, on the basis of reliable material, that the
seal had in fact been tampered with by or at the instance of the dealer.

28
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
Such foundational facts cannot be presumed merely because a broken
seal or a joint in the sealing wire was noticed during inspection.
70. The respondents have also relied upon Clause 1.4.2 of the MDG-
2012 to contend that the petitioner failed to report the alleged
irregularity. In the opinion of this Court, breach of the obligation to carry
out visual inspection or to report a damaged seal may constitute a lapse
on the part of the dealer. However, such omission cannot, in the absence
of independent evidence, be elevated to proof that the dealer himself
manipulated the dispensing mechanism or inserted unauthorized fittings
so as to attract the extreme penalty of termination.
71. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid decisions leaves no manner
of doubt that proceedings under Clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing Discipline
Guidelines are penal in nature and must, therefore, satisfy a higher
standard of proof than mere suspicion. Since the respondents have failed
to establish the essential ingredients of tampering by cogent technical
evidence and have rested their conclusions primarily upon presumptions
arising from taped joints and the condition of the seals, the findings
recorded in the impugned orders cannot be said to be legally sustainable.
72. Having examined the rival submissions, the pleadings on record,
the inspection report, the termination order dated 04.07.2017, the
appellate order dated 15.05.2018 and the authorities relied upon by the
parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have
failed to establish the charge of tampering in the manner contemplated
under the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012.
73. It is not in dispute that during inspection no additional electronic
device, chip, gear or any other unauthorized fitting was recovered from
either of the dispensing units. Both the disciplinary authority as well as
the appellate authority have accepted this factual position. Thus, one of
the principal circumstances ordinarily associated with manipulation of
dispensing units is admittedly absent in the present case.
74. Equally undisputed is the fact that no discrepancy in delivery of
fuel was detected during the inspection. The respondents have neither

29
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
alleged nor established that the petitioner indulged in short delivery,
excess delivery or adulteration of fuel. The absence of any such finding
considerably weakens the foundation upon which the allegation of
manipulation has been built.
75. The disciplinary authority has proceeded on the premise that since
there existed taped joints in the pulsar cables, the same must have been
intended for connecting additional fittings. Such conclusion is purely
inferential. Neither the OEM representative nor any other technical
expert has opined that the taped joints were capable of manipulating
delivery. No technical report explaining the functioning of the pulsar
cable or the impact of such joints upon fuel delivery has been placed on
record.
76. The appellate authority has merely affirmed the aforesaid
reasoning by observing that recovery of three pulsar cables with joints
amounts to tampering of the dispensing unit. Such observation, in the
opinion of this Court, is again conclusory in nature. A conclusion
unsupported by technical analysis cannot substitute proof, particularly
when the allegation entails civil consequences of a serious nature.
77. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner consistently pleaded that
the Tokheim dispensing unit was an old machine manufactured in the
year 2003, shifted from another retail outlet and installed at the
petitioner's outlet in the year 2008. The respondents have admitted these
facts. The petitioner further pleaded that the said dispensing unit had
remained under repeated repairs and had become non-functional since
23.03.2017. The inspection report itself records that the dispensing unit
was not dispensing fuel on the date of inspection. These circumstances
were relevant considerations while appreciating the allegation of
tampering, but neither authority has examined them in their proper
perspective.
78. The respondents have repeatedly relied upon Clause 1.4.2 of the
MDG-2012 to contend that the petitioner was under an obligation to
conduct daily visual inspection of the seals and report any irregularity.

30
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
While such obligation undoubtedly exists, failure to discharge the same
may constitute negligence on the part of the dealer. However, negligence
cannot automatically be equated with deliberate tampering of the
dispensing mechanism unless supported by independent evidence
establishing the dealer's involvement.
79. The petitioner also specifically pleaded that prior to the inspection
he had requested replacement of the rusted sealing wire. Whether the
said explanation ultimately deserved acceptance or not, it required
objective consideration by the authorities. The impugned orders reject
the explanation merely by describing it as an afterthought without
assigning any convincing reasons. Administrative authorities exercising
quasi-judicial functions are expected to deal with every material defence
in a reasoned manner, particularly when the consequence is termination
of a long-standing dealership.
80. Another significant aspect which weighs with this Court is that the
respondents have not produced any material establishing unauthorized
access of the petitioner to the internal electronic components of the
dispensing unit. Under the dealership arrangement, installation,
calibration, maintenance and repairs were admittedly carried out by the
Corporation through its engineers or authorized agencies. In the absence
of any evidence demonstrating when and by whom the alleged taped
joints came into existence, the finding that the petitioner himself
manipulated the dispensing unit remains unsupported by tangible
material.
81. This Court is conscious that the scope of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution is confined to examination of the
decision-making process and does not extend to re-appreciation of
evidence as an appellate authority. However, where findings are founded
upon assumptions rather than legally admissible evidence, or where
relevant material has not been considered, the writ court would be
justified in exercising its power of judicial review to prevent manifest
arbitrariness.

31
WRIC No. - 22251 of 2018
82. The impugned orders reveal that the respondents have proceeded
on the assumption that because there existed taped joints in the pulsar
cables and irregularity in the Weights and Measures seals, the petitioner
must necessarily have indulged in tampering. Such presumption
overlooks the settled legal position that suspicion, however strong,
cannot take the place of proof. The Corporation was required to
establish, through cogent technical evidence, that the alleged
irregularities were capable of manipulating delivery and that such
manipulation was attributable to the petitioner. No such evidence is
forthcoming.
83. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings
recorded by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority
suffer from the vice of non-consideration of relevant material, reliance
upon presumptive conclusions unsupported by scientific evidence and
misapplication of Clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines,
2012. Consequently, both the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
83. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed .
84. The order dated 04.07.2017 passed by respondent no.3 terminating
the petitioner's retail outlet dealership and the appellate order dated
15.05.2018 passed by respondent no.2 affirming the said order are
hereby quashed.
85. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's dealership
and all consequential benefits flowing therefrom within a period of six
weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order,
subject to there being no other legal impediment.
86. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Irshad Ali,J.)
July 06, 2026
Gautam
Digitally signed by :-
GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench