IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 CWP-17768-2020 Date of Decision : July 02, 2026 M/S SAT PARKASH AMAR SINGH -PETITIONER V/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1. The gravamen of the instant writ petition lies in the letter dated 11.08.2020 (Annexure P-13), whereby respondent No.2 has terminated the petitioner’s dealership of Retail Outlet. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the termination letter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Chapter 8 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Guidelines”) classifies irregularities at Retail Outlets (MS/HSD) and SKO/LDO Dealerships into three categories, namely, critical, major and minor. It is contended that the only irregularity recorded in the Inspection Report dated 16.08.2014 (Annexure P-4) pertained to the Weights and Measures (W&M) calibrated measure delivery not conforming to the prescribed standard, which squarely falls within the category of “minor DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-17768-2020 2 irregularities”. It is further contended that all the three seals, namely, the Weights and Measures Seal, the Totaliser Seal and BPCL’s 5 Point Seal, were found intact during the inspection, as is evident from the Inspection Report. However, this material aspect was completely overlooked by the authority concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-14, which encloses the diagram of the MIDCO Dispensing Unit, to demonstrate that no alteration or tampering had been carried out in the dispensing unit. It is, therefore, submitted that the alleged irregularity could not have been classified as a “critical irregularity” within the meaning of Clause 8.2 of the Guidelines. It is also contended that the petitioner has been operating the dealership of the respondent-Company since 1973 without any complaint whatsoever regarding either the quality or quantity of products. It is argued that the alleged irregularity, at best, pertains merely to short delivery with Weights and Measures Department’s seals remaining intact, which is specifically classified as a “minor irregularity” under Clause 8.4 of the Guidelines. Consequently, it is argued that the impugned letter imposing the extreme penalty of termination of the petitioner’s dealership is arbitrary, disproportionate and legally unsustainable. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned termination letter and submits that the report of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) unequivocally records that the pulser cable of the dispensing unit had been tampered with. It is further submitted that, during the inspection, the MS nozzle of MIDCO Dispensing DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-17768-2020 3 Unit (DU) No. 05KB1298V was found to be delivering 210 ml less than the prescribed quantity per five litres in four consecutive readings. It is contended that, despite specific instructions from the inspecting officer not to switch the dispensing unit off or on, the manager of the petitioner’s retail outlet, acting with a mala fide intent, operated the toggle switch of the dispensing unit, thereby causing the electronic command to reset and restoring the dispensing unit to its normal delivery mode, with the result that the subsequent delivery fell within the permissible limits. Accordingly, it is contended that this sequence of events establishes that the dispensing unit had been subjected to electronic manipulation. 5. Further, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was afforded adequate and effective opportunity to explain his case, inasmuch as two separate show cause notices were issued to him. It is also submitted that the petitioner was specifically called upon to remain present during the inspection and examination of the dispensing unit by the OEM. However, despite such opportunity, neither the petitioner nor his representative appeared. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot now be permitted to raise any grievance in this regard. 6. Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the rival submissions, gauging the legality of the impugned letter and penning down the resultant verdict, it is deemed apposite to make a swift and compendious survey of the factual matrix. 7. The petitioner was initially granted a licence to operate the respondent-Company’s Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) at Goraya, District Jalandhar, on 31.12.1973, and an agreement to that effect was executed DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-17768-2020 4 between the parties on the same day. The said agreement was subsequently renewed on two occasions, i.e. on 20.04.1987 and 06.09.1998. The Retail Outlet, along with the machinery installed therein, was subjected to periodic inspections by officials of the respondent-Company, the Weights and Measures Department, the Explosives Department and other concerned authorities. During one such routine inspection conducted on 16.08.2014, the Sales Officer of the respondent-Company detected electronic tampering in the dispensing unit. The MS nozzle of MIDCO Dispensing Unit (DU) No. 05KB1298V was found to be delivering 210 ml short per five litres measure in four consecutive readings. However, when the manager of the Retail Outlet operated the toggle switch, despite specific instructions of the Sales Officer not to switch the dispensing unit off or on, the dispensing unit reverted to delivering fuel within the permissible limit per five litres. Consequently, the dispensing unit was sealed, and a copy of the Inspection Report dated 16.08.2014 (Annexure P-4) was handed over to the manager of the petitioner’s Retail Outlet on the same day. Thereafter, the respondent- Company issued a show cause notice dated 07.11.2014 (Annexure P-5) calling upon the petitioner to explain the irregularities detected during the inspection, to which the petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure P-6). 8. Before the respondent-Company could arrive at a final decision on the basis of the petitioner’s reply, the Guidelines were amended, mandating that in all cases involving alleged tampering with a dispensing unit, an independent opinion of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) must be obtained before any decision is taken. Accordingly, on 23.09.2015, the relevant components of the dispensing unit were removed DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-17768-2020 5 and forwarded to the concerned OEM for examination. The components were scheduled to be opened by the OEM on 09.11.2015 in the presence of the petitioner/dealer, however, neither the petitioner nor his representative appeared. Consequently, another date, i.e. 30.11.2015, was fixed for the said purpose. Despite such opportunity, the petitioner again failed to remain present, whereupon the components were opened in the presence of the representatives of the respondent-Company and the OEM officials. The OEM submitted its report dated 03.06.2016 (Annexure P-9), recording that “the test has not passed”. The report further noted that the pulser cable was found in a tampered condition and all three signal wires of the pulser cable had been twisted together, which was wholly unauthorized. On the basis of the OEM report, the respondent-Company issued a second show cause notice dated 16.07.2016 (Annexure P-8), to which the petitioner submitted a further reply (Annexure P-10). Ultimately, having concluded that the dispensing unit had been tampered with, resulting in short delivery of fuel to consumers, the respondent-Company issued the impugned letter dated 11.08.2020 terminating the petitioner’s dealership of Retail Outlet. Thus, deriving grievance therefrom, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 9. Since the case set up on behalf of the petitioner predominantly hinges on the contention that, even if the allegations levelled by the respondent-Company are assumed to be true, they constitute only a case of a “minor irregularity” and not a “critical irregularity”, it is deemed imperative at this juncture to examine Clauses 8.2 and 8.4 of Chapter 8 of the Guidelines, wherein critical and minor irregularities are prescribed, DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-17768-2020 6 respectively. 10. Clause 8.2 of the Guidelines deals with critical irregularities, and sub-clause (iv) thereof expressly classifies “additional/unauthorized fittings and gears inside the dispensing units/tampering with dispensing units” as a critical irregularity, for which the prescribed penalty is termination of the dealership at the very first instance. On the other hand, Clause 8.4 deals with minor irregularities, and sub-clause (i) thereof classifies “short delivery with Weights and Measures Department’s seals intact where the dealer has not informed the OMC of this defect” as a minor irregularity. The penalties prescribed for such irregularity are issuance of a warning at the first instance, a penalty of ₹10,000/- per nozzle if short delivery is detected within one year of the first instance, and ₹25,000/- per nozzle for the third and every subsequent instance within one year of the first instance. The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder:- “8.2 Critical Irregularities: The following irregularities are classified as critical irregularities: i. to iii. XX XX XX iv. Additional/Unauthorized fittings and gears inside the dispensing units/tampering with dispensing units. (5.1.4) v. to vii. XX XX XX Action: Termination at the FIRST instance will be imposed for the above irregularities. XX XX XX XX 8.4 Minor Irregularities: The following irregularities are classified as minor irregularities: i. Short delivery with Weights & Measures Departments’ seals intact where the dealer has not informed the OMC of this defect. {5.1.2(a)} ii. to iv. XX XX XX Action in case of (i) above would be as under:- DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-17768-2020 7 First instance: warning letter to be issued Second instance within one year of 1st instance: ₹10000/- per nozzle found delivering short. Third and subsequent instances within one year of 1st instance: ₹25000/- per nozzle found delivering short.” 11. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a studied survey of the material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition. In the considered opinion of this Court, the irregularities detected during the inspection conducted on 16.08.2014 clearly fall within the ambit of “critical irregularities” and not “minor irregularities”. Consequently, the respondent-Company was justified in terminating the petitioner’s dealership of Retail Outlet. The reasons for drawing this conclusion stem from a conjoint reading of the Inspection Report dated 16.08.2014 and the test report of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) dated 03.06.2016, the relevant extracts whereof are reproduced hereunder:- “Inspection Report dated 16.08.2014 12. Report of inspection of pump delivery: MS HSD VALID UPTO a) Weights and Measures seal intact : Yes/No YES YES HSD CVL&T 4410 16.5.2015 b) Totaliser seal intact : Yes/No YES YES MS05KB1 298V 23.4.2015 c) BPCL’s 5 point sealing intact: Yes/No YES YES MS(2T) HW4074 23.4.2015 HSD L&T 9008 23.4.2015 d) 5 W&M calibrated measure delivery: Correct NO YES 22.07.2016 Short/Excess Detailed report attached NA DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-17768-2020 8 Test Report of OEM dated 03.06.2016 Remark: (i) Pulser cable was found in tampered condition. (ii) All three signal wires in pulsar cable are found to be twisted together. This is completely unauthorized.” 12. The inspection conducted on 16.08.2014 revealed that the MS nozzle of MIDCO DU No. 05KB1298V was initially delivering 210 ml short per five litres in four consecutive readings. However, when the manager of the petitioner’s Retail Outlet operated the toggle switch of the dispensing unit, despite the specific instructions of the Inspecting Officer/ Sales Officer of the respondent-Company not to switch the unit off or on, the dispensing unit immediately reverted to delivering fuel within the permissible limit. This sequence of events clearly indicates that the dispensing unit had been electronically tampered with. The findings recorded in the OEM report further corroborate the said conclusion, as it specifically records that the pulser cable was found in a tampered condition and all three signal wires of the pulser cable had been twisted together, which was wholly unauthorized. 13. In view of the foregoing, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present case is not one of mere short delivery of fuel but one involving tampering with the dispensing unit itself. The irregularity, therefore, squarely falls within the category of “critical irregularities”, for which the Guidelines unequivocally prescribe termination of the dealership at the first instance. Furthermore, the respondent-Company complied with all procedural requirements before issuing the impugned termination letter. The petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to explain his stand by way of show cause notices and was also given sufficient opportunity to DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-17768-2020 9 participate in the OEM inspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also been unable to demonstrate any procedural irregularity or prejudice caused to the petitioner during the course of the proceedings culminating in the termination of the dealership. 14. In summa, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 02, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment