SUPREME COURT HELD THE OIL COMPANY CANNOT IGNORE LEGAL GUIDLINES
Category: JUDGEMENT REVIEW
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Facts: The respondent was designated as a dealer for the appellant(s)' gasoline, diesel, motor oil, grease, and other related products. A group of SGS India representatives showed up at the respondent's gas station on August 18, 2007, posing as representatives of the appellant(s), and they took samples of Motor Spirit (MS) and High-Speed Diesel (HSD). On August 20, 2007, the respondent received a show cause notice from the appellant, requesting that they respond to the alleged irregularities within seven days. The respondent was notified of the supply suspension with immediate effect by the Senior Sales Officer of the Durgapur Sales Area, based on the Preliminary Test Report. The authorities of the appellant(s) conducted a Joint Marker Test, and the sample failed on such a re-test as well. This is evident from the Analysis Report. The authority of the Agency to conduct such collection of samples was questioned by the respondent at the Regional Office of the appellant(s). However, it is alleged that without considering the same, the Marker Test was conducted on such samples. Being aggrieved by the order of suspension of supply, the writ petition, which eventually gave rise to the present proceedings, was filed.
Legal provisions:
1-Clause 7 of the Control Order (2005): Specifies authorized personnel for taking samples and testing.
2- Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Pertains to the procedure for search and seizure.
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER
It was argued by the petitioner advocate that It was submitted that Clause 4 of the Agreement provides that a license was terminable immediately on (a) the termination of the Agreement; and (b) breach of any of the terms thereof which are described in Clause 58. The tests conducted by the Agency as well as the officials of the appellant(s) found the respondent to be in breach of Clause 58(h). The appellant(s) found the respondent to have violated in total, five clauses of the Agreement – Clauses 26, 27, 44, 58(i), and (m), and as such the same was terminated. It was contended that the Agency had the authority to conduct the tests in question as Clause 2.2.2.3 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines dated 1st August 2005 issued by the Government of India, provides that apart from oil company officials, mobile labs, and ‘agencies authorized by oil companies’ were permitted to draw samples.
The main argument by the petitioner advocates that the agency can make tests based on government guidelines, As the agreement ends due to rule violation the Control order does apply here, and they referred to a similar case.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
The advocate for the respondent argued that MDGs are issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and therefore possess statutory force. It cannot choose to follow only those portions of the law that suit its position. The termination of the Agreement could not be carried out without adhering to the inspection guidelines as per the Control Order. Clause 39 of the Agreement uses the term “duly authorized representative” which is not defined in the Agreement. The Control Order under Clause 2(b) defines an “authorized officer” and it states that only such a person shall have the power of search and seizure as per Clause 7. The agreement does not prescribe any procedure for the collection of samples, testing, or any other procedure for the alleged adulteration of products. The Control Order (2005) was preceded by a similar order of 1998 and both would be binding on an oil manufacturing company. As such, the procedure mentioned in Clause 7 of the Control Order would be required to be followed.
The advocate also argued that No power has been conferred upon the oil manufacturing company to bypass the procedure of drawing samples. In furtherance of the above submissions, the learned senior counsel for the respondent further relies on Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Ors. v. Super Highway Services & Anr. Allied Motors Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation; Nazir Ahmad v. The King Emperor, and certain other decisions. It is necessary to refer to certain Rules, Regulations/provisions of documents for being part of the record to examine the issue in the present. For ease of reference, they are extracted hereunder.
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the lower courts, which had quashed the termination of the dealership. The court concluded that the actions of HPCL The court examined whether the appellant needed to follow under control order, The court stressed it is a must to follow the control order and action will be taken against those who don’t follow these control orders, the court said the importance to follow the guidelines and respect the judicial precedents. The court also noted that the oil company could not pick and choose which parts of the law to follow. The decision to end the respondent's dealership was unfair and violated legal procedures. Thus, the court upheld the lower court's decision to cancel the termination.
The Supreme Court ruled that the termination of the respondent's dealership was invalid. The agency that collected fuel samples was not properly authorized, and the correct procedures were not followed. The court emphasized that the oil company cannot ignore legal guidelines. As a result, the court upheld the previous decision to cancel the termination of the dealership, stating that the process was unfair and violated legal norms.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: AJAY KUMAR H GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
