D.S.R. Varma, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 17.02.2009, passed by a learned single Judge, allowing Writ Petition No.7235 of 2009.

3. Appellants are the respondents and the respondent is writ petitioner in the writ petition.

4. For the sake of convenience, the appellants and the respondent will be referred to as the Corporation and the writ petitioner, respectively.

5. The Writ Petition was filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 07.03.2008, terminating the licence as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

6. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the Corporation had conducted an inspection on 16.03.2007 at the outlet belonging to the writ petitioners, that it was routine inspection in which no lapses or any irregularities were found, that the next inspection, which is random in nature, was conducted on 16.04.2007, during which course, certain lapses have been noticed by the Corporation, that the said lapses pertaining to metering unit weights and measures seals wire found cut, that the sealing wire coming out from the metering unit and that the MS delivery found to be short by 40 KL per 5 litres.

7. Nextly, totaliser unit weights and measures seal was not put properly, without tampering the weights and measures seal and wire, the totaliser unit can be taken out and refixed as it is. The said lapses were recorded and the same were furnished to the writ petitioner and the same was acknowledged by him. Consequently, a show cause notice, dated 02.05.2007, was given to the writ petitioner pointing out the following lapses, as were allegedly found during the inspection on 16.04.2007:

1. MS Pump metering Unit W/M seal found cut.

2. Short delivery through MS & HSD dispensing units.

3. MS & HSD pump totaliser unit WEIGHTS AND MEASURES seal not intact.

8. A detailed explanation was offered by the writ petitioner on 03.08.2007, but it was found that the explanation was only with regard to the first allegation pointed out in the said show cause notice. It was specifically further stated in the said explanation that during the inspection by the Quality Control Officer it was broken at his hands, which was noticed by the writ petitioner. He specifically averred that he did not open the dispensing unit, earlier to Quality Control Officer inspection. Had it been done so, they would have rectified the said mistake with the help of weights and measures Inspector much prior. Therefore, it appears that a second show cause notice was issued on 26.09.2007 pointing out the other two lapses, which were mentioned in the first show cause notice, dated 02.05.2007, and, of course, the said two lapses were a bit dilated and the writ petitioners was called upon to explain as to why action, including that of termination of the dealership agreement, cannot be taken against him, as provided under clauses 16, 22, 31, 42, 55(j) and 55(k) of the said agreement. An explanation, dated 05.11.2007, was submitted by the writ petitioner, wherein he had pointed out that the weights and measures seal found cut was because of the fall of rain water on the pumps and consequent thereof the rain water was being entered inside the pumps and as a result, the thin sealing wire was damaged and only due to that the said lapse had taken place and, therefore, the same was beyond the control of the writ petitioner.

9. Nextly, it was pointed out that for the first time it was noticed by the writ petitioner when the Quality Control Officer opened the dispensing unit and immediately the weights and measures Inspector carried out the stamping job for the unit upon the request made by the writ petitioner.

10. As regards the short delivery, it was explained that the pumps were very old and were used since a long time and due to that there may be some variation occurred, but no