JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 2.8.2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) terminating the dealership of the petitioner in respect of petrol pumps at Hari Parvat, Delhi Gate, Agra and Keetham, Agra. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the Director, C.B.I.. New Delhi to hold an enquiry regarding the alleged attack by the officers of the respondent No. 1 Corporation along with personal security guards and local police of the U. P. on the petrol and diesel pumps of the petitioners which are running for the last 40 years.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. On 13.1.1971, an agreement was signed between the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd., Delhi and with Prakash Narayan Gupta and Shri Tarlochan Singh Chaudhary vide Annexure-1 to the petition. By this agreement, the company granted licence from 1.1.1970 to enter upon the premises in question and to use the Motor Spirit and/or H.S.D. Pumps, Storage Tanks, Pipes and Fittings and all other facilities erected and provided by the company upon the said premises, for the purpose of the sale of the aforesaid items. For this, monthly licence fee has to be paid by the licencee. The Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. was subsequently taken over by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Ltd.
4. Subsequently, on 13.8.1998 another agreement took place between M/s. Mohinder Kaur Chaudhary, Shri Amarjeet Singh Chaudhary and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. regarding two petrol pumps. One pump was at Delhi Gate. Hari Parvat, Agra and the other was at Agra Mathura Road, Keetham, Agra. The first pump was only for selling petrol while the other was for selling diesel.
5. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the performance of both the pumps was above normal but the machines provided by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. were sometimes defective. It is alleged in this paragraph that the Sr. Inspector of the Weight and Measurement Department after inspection of the Delhi Gate, Hari Parvat Pump on 18.7.2002 found that there was some defect in the machine vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the Mobile Lab Test Report, which is done on random basis, clearly shows that the sample qualifies the test specification and the petrol is absolutely pure and this shows the performance of the petitioner. A true copy of the report in this connection is annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition.
6. In paragraph 5 of the petition, it is alleged that from time to time meetings took place between the petitioners and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Officers with regard to improvement of performance in sale and the petitioner was complying with all necessary formalities and was also obeying the instructions issued by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. It is alleged in this paragraph that the Corporation was harassing the petitioner as the Corporation deliberately blocked a sum of Rs. 50 lacs of the petitioner and the petitioner was ruined. In this connection copy of the letter dated 15.2.2001 to the Chief Distribution Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Ltd. at NOIDA is annexed as Annexure-4 to the petition. This letter was confirmed by the Territory Manager, Agra vide Annexure-5 to the petition. In paragraph 7 of the petition it is stated that in the inspection on 18.7.2002 the seals were found intact and no tampering had been done. It is alleged in paragraph 9 that the nature of irregularities mentioned in the report does not call for penal action against the petitioner as they were only of casual nature irregularities beyond the control of the petitioners. In paragraph 10 of the petition it is alleged that there were some fall in the sale on account of the general recession in the market. Moreover, the Corporation blocked Rs. 50 lacs of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the Corporation was not providing modern machine for distribution of petrol and diesel and the existing dispensing pumps of Z line type to other outlets have been removed. The Petrol Pump at Hari Parvat, Delhi Gate, Agra has been running from the year 1964 onwards and more than 50 persons are employed there while the petrol pump at Keetham, Agra, is running from 1994 and about 15 persons are employed there,
7. It is alleged that on the morning of 3.8.2002 a large number of persons in plain clothes and private security guards and U. P. Police officials numbering about 100 attacked the Petrol Pump at Hari Parvat, Delhi Gate, Agra and at Keetham, Agra, simultaneously and took away various items some of which were thrown on the road. It is alleged that the termination letter dated 2.8.2002 was handed over at Delhi Gate Petrol Pump, Agra at 8.30 p.m. vide Annexure-7 to the petition. It is alleged that the actions of the respondents were malafide and at the behest of some influential people who are interested in getting the petrol pumps for themselves as they are located in the prime areas. The Corporation has restrained the petitioners from selling petrol and diesel. In paragraph 23 of the petition, it is alleged that the pumps have been sealed and the respondents have blocked entry in the pumps by using drums causing great loss to the petitioners. In paragraph 24 of the petition, it is alleged that various amounts are due from the Corporation to the petitioner. In paragraph 25 of the petition it is alleged that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 2.8.2002.
8. A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same.
9. The reply to paragraph 25 of the writ petition is given in paragraph 36 of the counter-affidavit of the Corporation. In paragraph 36 of the counter-affidavit, there is no denial of the allegation of the petitioner that he was not given show cause notice before passing the impugned order dated 2.8.2002. The stand taken by the respondents is that petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of arbitration. In our opinion, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, particularly when opportunity of hearing was not given.
10. In paragraph 11 (v) of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that Clause 12 of the agreement provides that licence may be terminated without giving any reason and by giving ninety days notice in writing. In our opinion, despite this clause opportunity of hearing had to be given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order as the said order has civil consequences. In paragraph 11 (viii) (ix) (x) of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that various irregularities have been committed by the petitioners, e.g., non-performance, tampering with machine, using double gear, short delivery, etc. due to which the sale volume dropped steeply. A chart in this connection has been annexed as Annexure-C.A. 2 to the affidavit. It is alleged that these irregularities were brought to the notice of the dealer but he did nothing and hence the agreement was terminated on 2.8.2002. It is alleged that petitioner was only a licencee and hence the agreement could be terminated.
11. In our opinion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Even if it is alleged that the petitioner had committed some irregularities, he should have been given a show cause notice. The principles of natural justice are that opportunity of hearing should be given before passing an adverse order which has civil consequences. This is the well-settled law since the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Binapani Dey, AIR 1967 SC 1269.
12. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 2.8.2002, is quashed. The petitioner will be allowed to continue his business of operating the petrol and dlesel pumps, and the seals will be removed.
13. However, it is open to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As regards the allegations about the attack by certain officials on the petitioner's pumps, the petitioners can approach the appropriate authority in this connection who will do the needful in accordance with law.