INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. versus M/S. R.M. SERVICE CENTRE & ANR. on 7 November 2019

[2019] 13 S.C.R. 1113

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

v.

M/S. R.M. SERVICE CENTRE & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 8257 of 2019)

NOVEMBER 07, 2019

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 – Cl.5.1.11, 5.1.9, 8.2and sub-cl.I of cl.2.5 – Termination of the dealership – RespondentNo.1-dealer had retail dealership for sale of motor spirit (petrol),High Speed Diesel, motor oil and grease – A joint inspection wasconducted by the appellants and it was found that there wasvariation of stock of High Speed Diesel beyond permissible limitand non-availability of reference density was also observed –Samples were drawn and sent for testing – The samples failed tomeet the specifications – The dealer was informed of the result –Thereafter, dealership was terminated – Writ petition by the dealer– The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition andheld that there was non-compliance of the timeline fixed forsubmitting the samples for testing in laboratory – The samples wererequired to reach the laboratory preferably within ten days whereas,the first sample was sent and tested after ten days and the umpiresample was tested even later – Decision of the Single Judge of theHigh Court was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court –On appeal, held: In the instant case, there was a delay of 5 days –Since the guidelines use the timeline as a preferred timeline, it cannotbe said that the timeline mentioned has to be strictly adhered to andis mandatory – The language, the purport and the effect of testingdo not warrant to read the word ‘preferably’ as mandatory timeline– There was variation in stock beyond permissible limits – In caseof positive stock variation beyond permissible limits and on accountof failure of sample, action in line with that of adulteration was tobe initiated – The adulteration in these circumstances was a criticalirregularity falling in Cl.8.2 of the guidelines and the action requiredto be taken was termination of the dealership – The action wasrightly taken to terminate the dealership of the respondent no.1 –Consequently, the order passed by the High Court set aside.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1114SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AAllowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The dealer was granted retail dealership for saleof motor spirit (petrol), High Speed Diesel, motor oil and grease.It is not disputed that the dealer is bound by the MarketingDiscipline Guidelines, 2012 issued by the Public Sector OilBMarketing Companies. Clause 2.4.4 of the Guidelines providesfor procedure for drawing of samples. Note 2 provides that thesamples drawn should reach the laboratory for testing “preferablywithin ten days of the collection of the samples”. Similarly, sub-clause A of Clause 2.5 of the Guidelines provides that all samplesshould be suitably coded before sending them to the laboratoryCfor testing ‘preferably’ within ten days of drawing the samples.Sub-clause I of Clause 2.5 of the Guidelines is that the purposeof mentioning time frame for various activities such as sendingsamples to the laboratory preferably within ten days is tostreamline the system and is in no way related to quality/result ofDthe product. In view of the language of the Guidelines, the findingsrecorded by the High Court that the time line is to be strictlyadhered to cannot be sustained. [Paras 2 and 14][1116-F; 1124-G-H; 1125-A]

2. The Guidelines as mentioned in sub-clause I of Clause

2. The Guidelines as mentioned in sub-clause I of Clause E2.5 of the Guidelines is to streamline the functioning i.e. the oilcompanies should not arbitrarily or without any justification sendthe sample for testing at their sweet will. In the present case,there was a delay of 5 days. Since the Guidelines use the timeline as a preferred time line, it cannot be said that the time linementioned has to be strictly adhered to and is mandatory. TheFlanguage, the purport and the effect of testing do not warrant toread the word ‘preferably’ as mandatory time line. It is not thecase of the dealer that the sample sent after five days will lose itsefficacy as the umpire sample would be sent only after the firstreport is confronted to the dealer. Still further, the dealer has notGraised any objections regarding delay in sending the sample inthe two replies submitted by him. The argument that the umpiresample in the hands of the dealer could not be tested because ofsludge and to doubt the other two samples is totally untenable.Such argument is based upon conjectures as the other twosamples collected and sealed cannot be permitted to be disputedH

only because one sample was found with sludge. There is nomaterial to doubt the correctness of the samples taken.[Para 15][1125-B-E]

3. There was variation in stock beyond permissible limits.In case of positive stock variation beyond permissible limits andon account of failure of sample, action in line with that ofadulteration is to be initiated. The adulteration in thesecircumstances is a critical irregularity falling in Clause 8.2 of theGuidelines and the action required to be taken is termination ofthe dealership. However, in case of stock variation beyondpermissible limits and the sample passing the quality test, it leadsto suspension of sale and supply for fifteen days in the firstinstance, suspension of sale and supply for thirty days in the secondinstance and termination of dealership in the third instance. Inthis case, since the stock variation was beyond permissible limitsand the sample failed, therefore, the action was rightly taken underClause 5.1.11 of the Guidelines which is a critical irregularitywhen read with sub-clause (i) of Clause 8.2 and sub-clause (iv) ofClause 8.3 of the Guidelines. [Para17][1125-G-H; 1126-A-B]

4. The judgments referred to by the dealer are notapplicable to the facts of the present case as in both the cases,the action taken by the oil company was found to be in violationof the principle of natural justice as no notice was served uponthe dealer but, in the present case, after failure of the first samplein the test report, the dealer was informed, who opted for testingof umpire sample in his possession. The said sample along withthe sample in possession of the Field Survey Officer was sent fortesting and in the following report, the sample was found to havethe same deviations as in the first sample. The dealer was informedof the result of the second test and was also given a show causenotice as to why the dealership should not be terminated.Therefore, the action taken against the dealer is in terms of theGuidelines, as a consequence of contractual obligations by thedealer. [Para 18][1126-C-E]

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. v.Super Highway Services & Anr (2010) 3 SCC 321 :

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A[2010] 2 SCR 1053; Bharat Petroleum CorporationLimited v. Jagannath And Company & Ors. (2013) 12SCC 278 : [ 2013] 2 SCR 828 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2010] 2 SCR 1053referred toPara 10B[2013] 2 SCR 828referred toPara 10CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8257of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2018 of the GauhatiCHigh Court in W.A. No. 74 of 2016.

Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Priya Puri, Yati Sharma,Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Manish Goswami, Ikbal Ahmed, C. M. Angadi,Shereef K.A., Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Vikrant Yadav, Manish,DRaj Bahadur, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order of the DivisionEBench of the Gauhati High Court passed in writ appeal on 20[th] February,2018 maintaining an order of the Single Bench of the High Court wherebytermination of dealership of respondent No. 1[1] for violation of MarketingDiscipline Guidelines, 2012[2] was set aside.

2. The dealer was granted retail dealership for sale of motor spiritF(petrol), High Speed Diesel, motor oil and grease as a physical disabledperson on a depot located at Ghograpar, National Highway-31 in theDistrict of Nalbari, Assam. The sale and supply from the retail outlet ofthe dealer was suspended by the appellants on 6[th] May, 2013 when itwas found, on the joint inspection, variation of stock of High Speed Dieselbeyond permissible limit; density of Tank No. 2 was not available andGthat tanker truck retention of the corresponding tank was not availableat the time of inspection. The appellant had drawn three samples fromTank No. 2. One sample was sent for testing, another sample was retained H

1 for short, ‘dealer’

2 for short, ‘Guidelines’

by the Field Survey Officer and the third sample was handed over to thedealer. A show cause notice was issued to the dealer on 6[th] May, 2013,alleging violation of Clauses 5.1.9 and 5.1.11 of the Guidelines. The dealersubmitted his explanation on 21[st] May, 2013, inter alia, stating thatdispensing unit was not working properly and, therefore, wrong readingswere shown.

3. The dealer was informed on 27[th] June, 2013 that test report ofHigh-Speed Diesel samples drawn from the tank on 6[th] May, 2013 hadbeen received. The report was that the samples failed to meet thespecifications. Thereafter, in response to a show cause notice dated 27[th]June, 2013 to explain the non-conformities detected, the dealer vide letterdated 17[th] July, 2013 requested to seek retesting of the umpire samplewhich was drawn on the same day, sealed, and certified by the appellants.The stand of the dealer was that the dispensing unit was 20 years oldand due to lack of maintenance on account of the road-widening project,the totalizer had been showing wrong readings.

4. The request of the dealer for retest was accepted on 6[th] August,2013. The retest was carried out in the Laboratory of the appellants ontwo sets of samples including the one retained by the Field Survey Officerof the appellants. The report of the aforesaid two sets of samples wasissued on 19[th] August, 2013. The report of the sample which was retainedby Field Survey Officer of the appellants was that it did not meet theBIS III specifications whereas, the sample of the dealer was not fit fortesting due to presence of sludge.

5. On the basis of the test reports dated 29[th] May, 2013 and 19[th]August, 2013, the dealership was terminated on 25[th] April, 2014 afterserving another show cause notice dated 10[th] December, 2013 wherein,it has been stated that deviation was observed during inspection pertainingto stock variation and non-availability of reference density. The appellantshave mentioned details of non-conformity and the violation of the Clausesin the letter of termination dated 25[th] April, 2014, which read as under:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A6. It was also pointed out that out of three samples drawn fromTank No. 2 on 6[th] May, 2013, one sample was sent to the Laboratory,another was retained by the Field Survey Officer and the third samplewas handed over to the dealer. The result of the three samples is asunder:

BSN Test report number Test report date Status Details of sample 1. NERL/MDG/HS-29.05.2013 Does not meet Nozzle sample 62/2013 specification collected on 06.05.2013 and sent to Betkuchi for testing2. NERL/MDG/HS-19.08.2013 Does not meet Nozzle sample 77/2013 specification collected on 06.05.2013 and Cretained with Field Officer till subsequent test on 19.08.2013. 3. NERL/MDG/HS-19.08.2013 Test not Nozzle sample 77/2013 conducted collected on 06.05.2013 and retained with you till D19.08.2013 could not be tested due to presence of sludge.

7. In view of the above, the following violations were detected and the penal action was taken:

E“In view of the above the cumulative MDG violations detectedand established in the Retail Outlet are as follows:

a. Stock variation beyond permissible limit (Violation of MDG-2012 Clause no. 5.1.11)

b. Nozzle Sample failure of HSD. (Violation of MDG 2012 ClauseFno. 5.1.1)

c. Non availability of reference density (Violation of MDG-2012Clause no. 5.1.9)

d. Non availability of TT retention sample (Violation of MDG-2012 Chapter 5 notes-i)

G

The penal action for the irregularity mentioned in point no (a) &(b) is termination in the first instance as per Clause no 8.2 ofMDG-2012. The penal action for the irregularity mentioned inpoint no (c) & (d) is Warning cum Guidance letter in the firstinstance as per Clause no 8.4 of MDG-2012.

H

The above stated irregularities are also in violation of the provisionsmade under clause no. 27 and clause no. 40 of the dealershipagreement executed by and between you and the corporation on20.12.1995.”

8. The dealer challenged the termination of the dealership beforethe Gauhati High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitionon 13[th] October, 2015 holding that as per the Guidelines, the sampleswere required to reach the Laboratory preferably within ten dayswhereas, the first sample was tested on 29[th] May, 2013 that is after tendays and the umpire sample given to the dealer was tested on 19[th] August,2013. It was held that there is non-compliance of the time line fixed.The learned Single Judge held as under:

“27. Turning to the provisions under Clause 2.4.4 Notes (2), Clause2.5 and Clause 2.10 of the Guidelines, the time-limits prescribedfor sending the samples to the laboratory from the date of collectionas well as the time within which the sample should be tested fromthe date when it reached the laboratory, are provisions that requiresstrict adherence. If a contrary view is adopted to allow therespondent Corporation to take as much time at its discretion forsending the sample to the laboratory and thereafter to get it tested,the said provisions prescribing time-limits would be rendered otioseand redundant. On that account, the time-limits ought not to havebeen prescribed/mentioned in the said Clauses in the first place.Surely, this cannot be the intention of IOCL being full well awarethat time gap between the sample taken and laboratory test isessentially to be maintained so as to avert any variations in thedensity test of the sample so collected. The argument of Mr. MKChoudhury that the word “preferably” occurring in the said clausescannot be construed as “mandatory”, this Court rejects the saidcontention and holds that the adherence of the time-limitsprescribed under the Guidelines is directly proportionate to theultimate decision that would be reached. The time-limits andadherence thereof is a contractual obligation that has to bedischarged by the Oil Corporation in letter and spirit.”

9. The learned Single Judge also found that the stock variation isnot a critical irregularity within the meaning of Clause 8.2 of the Guidelinesand cannot entail termination of dealership.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A10. The Division Bench of the High Court, in appeal, agreed withthe finding recorded by the learned Single Bench. The Court relied uponjudgments of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited& Ors. v. Super Highway Services & Anr.[3] and Bharat PetroleumCorporation Limited v. Jagannath And Company & Ors.[4]. It washeld by the Division Bench of the High Court that the finding recordedBby the learned Single Judge is a plausible finding, therefore, does notwarrant interference in an intra-court appeal.

A

11. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the findingsrecorded by the High Court that the Guidelines require strict adherenceis a total misreading of the Guidelines. For such an argument, referenceCis made to Note 2 of Clause 2.4.4; Sub-Clauses A and I of Clause 2.5;Clause 8.2 classifying critical irregularities; Clause 8.3 classifying majorirregularities as well as Clause 5.1.1 of what is meant by the adulterationand Clause 5.1.11 providing for consequences of stock variation tocontend that in the event of failure of sample in the cases of positivestock variation beyond permissible limit, action in line with that ofDadulteration is to be initiated. Thus, apart from the adulteration, even thestock variation in the event of failure of sample leads to critical irregularity.It is contended that the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition andsetting aside the termination of the dealership. The relevant Clausesfrom the Guidelines read as under:

E“1.5 Observance of statutory and other regulations

(i) All statutory rules and regulations in connection with storageand sale of petroleum products must be followed and implemented,such as maintaining stock/sales & density records, display of dailystock, price board etc.

F

xx

xxxx

(v) The provisions contained in the Motor Spirit and High SpeedDiesel (Prevention of Malpractices in Supply & Distribution) Orderissued by the Government of India (or any amendment or revisionthereof) and instructions issued by the Oil Company/State Govt.Gauthorities etc. from time to time shall be strictly adhered to andall concerned records shall be maintained and produced toInspecting officials on demand.

H

3 (2010) 3 SCC 321

4 (2013) 12 SCC 278

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v.M/S. R.M. SERVICE CENTRE & ANR. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

2.4.4 Drawal of samples by mobile laboratories

(2) All the above samples should reach the laboratories for testingpreferably within 10 days of the collection of the samples.

xxxxxx

2.5 General procedure for drawal of samples (A) All samples should preferably be suitably coded before sendingto lab for testing preferably within 10 days of drawal.

xx

xx

xx

(I) The purpose of mentioning time frame for various activitiese.g. sending samples to lab preferably within 10 days etc. is tostreamline the system and is no way related to quality/result ofthe product.

xx

xxxx

5.1 MS/HSD

5.1.1. Adulteration of product

Definition:

“Adulteration” means the introduction of any foreign substanceinto Motor Spirit/High Speed Diesel illegally or unauthorizedly withthe result that the product does not conform to the requirementsof Bureau of Indian Standards specification number IS:2796 andIS:1460 for Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel respectively andamendments thereon, and/or If the observations on the sample under scrutiny and the referencesample do not fall within reproducibility/permissible limits of thetest method for which the samples are examined, and/or Any other requirement for the purpose to identify adulteration,issued by the Competent Authority from time to time.

xx

xxxx

5.1.11 Stock variation of MS/HSD (Beyond permissible limits)Fuel A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AStock reconciliation should be carried out and variation, if any,established after taking into account the normal operationalvariation of 4% of tank stock and after considering the followingfactors:

xxxxxx

BIn case of positive stock variation beyond permissible limits,samples will be drawn and sent to laboratory for testing. Salesand supplies of all products to be suspended immediately. Studyto be carried out to identify the reasons for stock variation. If thesample passes but some other irregularity like unauthorizedCpurchase etc. is established action to be taken accordingly.However, if the sample fails, action in line with that of adulterationwill be initiated.

xxxxxx

8. Action to be taken by OMC under the Marketing DisciplineDGuidelines 8.1 All irregularities (mentioned in chapter-5) are classified intothree categories, i.e. Critical, Major and Minor.

8.2 Critical Irregularities: The following irregularities are classifiedas critical irregularities:

E

i. Adulteration of MS/HSD (5.1.1)

xxxxxx

Action:

Termination at the First instance will be imposed for the aboveFirregularities.

8.3 Major Irregularities: The following irregularities are classifiedas major irregularities:

i.xxxxxxGii. Non availability of reference density at the time of inspection.(5.1.9)

iii.xxxxxx

iv. Stock variation beyond permissible limits but sample passingquality tests. (5.1.11)

H

xx

xxxx

Action: Except in case of (iii), (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x) above:

First instance:Suspension of sales and supplies for 15 days.Second instance: Suspension of sales and supplies for 30 days.Third instance:Termination of the dealership.

xxxxxx

8.5.1 The above are general guidelines and the actions prescribedin MDG 2012 are minimum. The competent Authority of theconcerned Oil Company can however take appropriate higheraction against the erring dealer, if deemed necessary includingtermination in the first or any instance in line with the provisionsof the Agreement.”

12. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for thedealer argued that if three samples were drawn at the same time, it isnot believable that the sample with the dealer alone has been found to becontaining sludge. If the samples were taken at the same time, finding ofsludge from the umpire sample completely knocks down the stand of theappellants that the samples have failed in the test, as the authenticity ofthe samples taking process is doubtful. It is further contended that interms of Clause 1.5 (v) of the Guidelines, the Motor Spirit and HighSpeed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractices in Supply & Distribution)Order, 2005[5] issued by the Government of India is applicable. The saidorder provides for a procedure of search and seizure. The search andseizure in terms of Clause 7 of the Control Order issued under Section 3of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955[6] can be effected only in thepresence of two independent witnesses as is required under Section 100of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[7]. Since, the sample has notbeen taken in the manner prescribed in the order read with Section 100of the Code, therefore, the termination of the dealership is wholly illegal.It is argued that such argument was raised before the learned SingleJudge but the same was not examined in view of the fact that theGuidelines were found to be mandatory in nature. It is contended thatthe findings recorded by the High Court, that the time limit in the Guidelinesis mandatory, owing to the larger public interest to serve and the appellantscannot take benefit of its delay, in sending samples for testing to lead a

5 for short, ‘Control Order’

6 for short, ‘Act’

7 for short, ‘Code’

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Apenal consequence of termination of the dealership is the correctenunciation of law. It is contended that termination of dealership is aserious consequence affecting right of a dealership under Articles 21and 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the dealer reliedupon the judgments referred to by the Division Bench of the High Court.

B13. The first issue required to be examined is whether the appellantswere required to follow the procedure under the Control Order readwith Section 100 of the Code. The Control Order has been issued underSection 3 of the Act. Such Act has been enacted for control of theproduction, supply and distribution and trade and commerce, of certaincommodities. In respect of High Speed Diesel and Motor Spirit, theCControl Order is issued for regulation of supply and distribution andprevention of the malpractices. Section 6A of the Act provides forconfiscation of the essential commodity whereas, Section 7 of the Actmakes any person who contravenes any order made under Section 3liable for criminal prosecution. Therefore, we find that the effect ofDissuance of the Control Order is that in the event of violation of such Control Order, any person who contravenes any order made underSection 3 of the Act i.e. the Control Order, he is liable to be punished bya Court. Therefore, the violation of the Control Order has penalconsequences leading to conviction. The provisions of search and seizurecontained in Clause 7 read with Section 100 of the Code will come intoEplay only in the event a person is sought to be prosecuted for violation ofthe provisions of the Control Order. Admittedly, in the present case, thedealer is not sought to be prosecuted for the violation of the Guidelines,therefore, the procedure for drawing of samples which is a necessarypre-condition under the Control Order for prosecuting an offender doesFnot arise for consideration.

14. The dealer has entered into an agreement on 20[th] December,1995. It is not disputed that the dealer is bound by the Guidelines issuedby the Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies. Clause 2.4.4 of theGuidelines provides for procedure for drawing of samples. Note 2 providesGthat the samples drawn should reach the laboratory for testing “preferablywithin ten days of the collection of the samples”. Similarly, sub-clause Aof Clause 2.5 of the Guidelines provides that all samples should be suitablycoded before sending them to the laboratory for testing ‘preferably’ withinten days of drawing the samples. Sub-clause I of Clause 2.5 of theGuidelines is that the purpose of mentioning time frame for various H

activities such as sending samples to the laboratory preferably withinten days is to streamline the system and is in no way related to quality/result of the product. In view of the language of the Guidelines, thefindings recorded by the High Court that the time line is to be strictlyadhered to cannot be sustained.

15. The Guidelines as mentioned in sub-clause I of Clause 2.5 ofthe Guidelines is to streamline the functioning i.e. the oil companies shouldnot arbitrarily or without any justification send the sample for testing attheir sweet will. The sample in this case was drawn on 6[th] May, 2013and was sent for testing on 22[nd] May, 2013 i.e. there was a delay of 5days. Since the Guidelines use the time line as a preferred time line, itcannot be said that the time line mentioned has to be strictly adhered toand is mandatory. The language, the purport and the effect of testing donot warrant to read the word ‘preferably’ as mandatory time line. It isnot the case of the dealer that the sample sent after five days will lose itsefficacy as the umpire sample would be sent only after the first report isconfronted to the dealer. Still further, the dealer has not raised anyobjections regarding delay in sending the sample in the two repliessubmitted by him on 17[th] July, 2013 and 2[nd] January, 2014. The argumentthat the umpire sample in the hands of the dealer could not be testedbecause of sludge and to doubt the other two samples is totally untenable.Such argument is based upon conjectures as the other two samplescollected and sealed cannot be permitted to be disputed only becauseone sample was found with sludge. There is no material to doubt thecorrectness of the samples taken.

16. The first test report dated 29[th] May, 2013 was found deficientin the density as also in K.V. @40 degree celsius, sulphur and distillationrecovery. Even the report dated 19[th] August, 2013 is found to be deficientin density, K.V., distillation recovery and sulphur. The result of the secondreport is almost the same as the sample tested on 29[th] May, 2013. Thus,the appellant has rightly terminated the dealership for adulteration of theHigh Speed Diesel.

17. There was variation in stock beyond permissible limits. Incase of positive stock variation beyond permissible limits and on accountof failure of sample, action in line with that of adulteration is to be initiated.The adulteration in these circumstances is a critical irregularity falling inClause 8.2 of the Guidelines and the action required to be taken istermination of the dealership. However, in case of stock variation beyond A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Apermissible limits and the sample passing the quality test, it leads tosuspension of sale and supply for fifteen days in the first instance,suspension of sale and supply for thirty days in the second instance andtermination of dealership in the third instance. In this case, since thestock variation was beyond permissible limits and the sample failed,therefore, the action was rightly taken under Clause 5.1.11 of theBGuidelines which is a critical irregularity when read with sub-clause (i)of Clause 8.2 and sub-clause (iv) of Clause 8.3 of the Guidelines.

18. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the dealerare not applicable to the facts of the present case as in both the cases,the action taken by the oil company was found to be in violation of theCprinciple of natural justice as no notice was served upon the dealer but,in the present case, after failure of the first sample in the test reportdated 29[th] May, 2013, the dealer was informed, who opted for testing ofumpire sample in his possession. The said sample along with the samplein possession of the Field Survey Officer was sent for testing and in theDreport dated 19[th] August, 2013, the sample was found to have the samedeviations as in the first sample tested on 29[th] May, 2013. The dealerwas informed of the result of the second test and was also given a showcause notice as to why the dealership should not be terminated.Therefore, the action taken against the dealer is in terms of the Guidelines,as a consequence of contractual obligations by the dealer.

E

19. Consequently, we find that order passed by the High Court isnot legal and sustainable and, thus, the same is set aside. The writ petitionis dismissed and the termination of dealership is held to be valid andlegal. Civil Appeal is allowed.

F

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

G

H