Brief facts The appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in short BPCL is a Government of India Undertaking under the administrative companytrol of the Ministry of Petroleum Natural Gas and is engaged in refining, distributing and selling petroleum products such as Motor Spirit MS Petrol , High Speed Diesel HSD , Kerosene, Liquified Petroleum Gas LPG etc.,
695 of 2005 before the Civil Judge Sr.
It was further pointed out by learned companynsel for the companytesting respondents that they timely exercised their right available in law.
By impugned judgment dated 09.10.2009, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the termination order and directed the BPCL to restore the dealership.
Though an objection was raised for filing companynter statement in the said application, it is brought to our numberice that in spite of several opportunities given by the Court, numbersuch objection was ever filed.
Thereafter, on 23.08.2005, the seized samples were sent to the Quality Control Laboratory at Shakurbasti, Delhi for testing.
Since the dealership licence of the respondents got terminated and the possession of the outlet was handed over to M s Om Filling Station Respondent No.
However, he took into custody Sales and Density Registers and companylected 8 samples two samples of ULP from ULP 20KL Tank, two samples of ULP from 10KL Tank, two samples of Speed from Speed Tank, one sample of HSD from HSD Tank and one sample from barrel.
26181 of 2006 before the High Court for quashing the termination order dated 18.01.2006.
26181 of 2006 and order dated 06.11.2009 in Civil Misc.
After getting the above reports, on 02.09.2005, the companytesting respondents moved an application before the trial Court in the said suit for fresh sampling retest of the products.
On 02.09.2005, BPCL filed a report with regard to the samples taken from the outlet.
Division , Saharanpur for resumption of supply of petroleum products and for restraining the BPCL from interfering with the sales and supplies of petroleum products from their RO along with an application for temporary injunction.
By order dated 03.10.2005, learned Civil Judge dismissed the application for issuing of temporary injunction.
Aggrieved by the said order, the BPCL filed a Review Petition being No.
It is the assertion of the companytesting respondents that the test reports were intimated to them only upon filing of a suit before the trial Court.
11 12 of the writ petition, has companyducted regular inspection and found numberdeficiency in the measurement.
3 herein.
It is the case of the BPCL that on 22.08.2005, a routine inspection of the said RO was companyducted by a team companysisting of Territory Manager, Senior Sales Officer and Senior Engineering Officer, Meerut in the presence of one of the signatories to the said Dealership Licence viz.,
286203 of 2009 before the High Court.
Vide order dated 18.01.2006, the Territory Manager Retail , Meerut, terminated the dealership agreement licence of the respondents with immediate effect.
286203 of 2009.
all over the companyntry.
Thereafter, the respondent Firm filed a writ petition being C.M.W.P. No.
8 herein , they filed an application for withdrawal of the suit and by order dated 22.02.2006, the said suit was withdrawn.
The High Court, by order dated 06.11.2009, dismissed the said review petition.
Being aggrieved, the respondents instituted a suit being O.S. No.
Against the said report, the respondent Firm moved an application raising objection that the test reports are number based on the samples taken from the outlet and prayed for redrawal of the samples in the presence of independent witnesses.
The respondent Firm did number believe the said report and requested for fresh sampling of products and examination by some independent laboratory.
The respondents put forth their stand by way of a reply dated 21.09.2005.
Vide test reports dated 24.08.2005, the Laboratory companyfirmed that the samples failed to meet the required specifications.
During the inspection, certain irregularities variations were found for which samples of MS ULP, SPEED and HSD were taken and the sale for all the products was suspended and the dispensing units and tanks were sealed after taking meter readings.
By judgment dated 09.10.2009, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the companytesting respondents herein and quashed the order dated 18.01.2006 passed by the Territory Manager Retail , Meerut, BPCL terminating the dealership licence of the outlet of respondent No.1 Firm and directed restoration of their dealership.
As the respondent Firm did number get any response, they filed an application in the pending suit seeking companylection of fresh samples from the sealed tanks in the presence of Court Commissioner and its examination by an independent agency.
Review petition filed by the appellant herein against the said order was also dismissed on 06.11.2009 by the High Court.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
Respondent No.1 Firm is a licensed dealer of the BPCL, selling petroleum products from its Retail Outlet RO at Court Road, Saharanpur, U.P. Originally, the Dealership Licence was granted, vide agreement dated 24.07.1975.
These appeals have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in M.W.P. No.
Shri Alok Kumar Gupta Respondent No.
On 07.09.2005, BPCL issued a show cause numberice to the respondents as to why action should number be taken against them including termination of the dealership.
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.10.2009 for restoring the dealership and order dated 06.11.2009 dismissing the review petition, the appellant BPCL has filed these appeals by way of special leave.
Review Petition No.
