Seeking a declaration that the order of the first respondent in proceedings No.R.SCD.132 dated 21-09-1994, terminating the Retail Outlet agreement with the petitioner, is illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to have the order set aside, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a dealer of the first respondent-Corporation, for running a Retail Outlet for High Speed Diesel (HSD), under the name and style of Sree Rama Service Station at Autonagar, Ranga Reddy District. This Retail Outlet was established pursuant to the permission granted by the respondent Corporation in its letter dated 16-03-1979.

3. The impugned order dated 21-09-1994 refers to the inspection of the retail outlet on 28-12-1991. The Inspection report dated 28-12-1991, in turn, refers to the earlier) inspection reports dated 28-09-1991 and 24-08-1991. In the Inspection report dated 24-08-1991 it is stated that the stock particulars were within permissible limits, the density test and the fuel was O.K, that the H.S.D. Pump was showing slow delivery, that the hosepipe needed to be replaced, that the tube lights of the pump were not functioning, that the retail outlet was mismanaged, the dealer was absent and disinterested in business and that he should report to the Divisional office for discussion. Petitioner would contend that it is for the Corporation to change the pump and the hosepipe whenever necessary and to maintain proper illumination at the Retail Outlet, and it is not his responsibility to do so. According to the petitioner the observations in the report, that the Retail Outlet was mismanaged, that the dealer was absconding and was disinterested in the business, were baseless, not substantiated, did not reflect the true state of affairs and were made with the ulterior motive of depriving the petitioner of his business.

4. Subsequent thereto another inspection was held on 28-09-1991, wherein also the second respondent found the stock particulars to be within limits and the density to be O.K. Petitioner would submit that. though the Corporation had not changed the hosepipe which, in the inspection held on 24-8-1991, was found to be defective, the second respondent in his report dated 28-09-1991 had observed that the equipment was functioning normally, and that the very same officer had submitted two contradictory reports within a span of a month. The second respondent, in his report dated 28-09-1991, observed that the Retail Outlet was neglected, the Dealer was absconding and was disinterested in business, that the pump pedestal had to be reconstructed and that the pump tube lights had to be repaired. According to the petitioner these works were required to be carried out by the Corporation and it was only to cover up their lapses that the respondents had made unfounded and motivated allegations against him.

5. A third inspection was held and, in his report dated 28-12-1991, the 2nd respondent observed that there was an excess of 348 liters on a sale of 1,55,349 liters, which was beyond permissible limits. Petitioner e\would submit that in the earlier report dated 28-09-1991, while the variation of minus (-) 176 liters on sales of 48,061 litres was found to be within permissible limits, curiously in the inspection report of 28-12-1991, excess stock of plus (+) 348 liters on sales of 1,55,349 litres was held to be beyond permissible limits. According to the petitioner, these findings were contrary to the norms prescribed in G.S.R.811 (e) dated 27-12-1990 issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the allegations, in the reports, were made with an ulterior motive and with a vindictive attitude. Petitioner would allege that on 28-12-1991, while the petrol tank was empty and a sample was taken by squeezing petrol from the tank, the density was however not recorded and that such extraction of the sample was in contravention of the norms prescribed in G.S.R.811(e) dated 27-12-1990. Petitioner would cont