1. The petitioner is a dealer of the 1st respondent-Corporation in petroleum products for the past 3½ decades. It has established a petroleum outlet at Peddapally, Karimnagar District. The dispensing unit was inspected on 22.10.2005 by the officials of the 1st respondent and samples of motor spirit were drawn. The analysis thereof at the laboratory disclosed that the samples did not accord with the standard specifications. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 19.11.2005 directing him to explain as to why necessary penal action be not taken against him. The petitioner submitted a reply on 29.11.2005 with a request to send the sample left with it, for analysis. Complaining that the request was not acceded to, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27033 of 2005. The writ petition was disposed of with certain observations and in particular directing the petitioner to express its willingness to get the sample left with it analyzed.

2. Through their letter dated 04.01.2006, the respondents informed the petitioner that its request to send the samples left with it for analysis cannot be acceded to, on the ground that though the seals were found intact, one of the inner aluminum container showed few pin-holes and the other, some marks. Exchange of notices ensued and ultimately through the order, dated 03.02.2006, the respondents terminated the dealership of the petitioner. W.P.No.2553 of 2006 was filed against the same. However, it was dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and it was dismissed on 23.02.2006. Hence, this writ petition.

3. The petitioner contends that the very purpose of leaving two samples with the dealer is to ensure transparency and there is absolutely no basis for the respondents in not acceding to the request to get the said samples analyzed. It is also stated that the reasons mentioned in the letter, dated 04.01.2006 are untenable, inasmuch as the seals were admittedly found to be intact.

4. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the samples drawn from the outlet of the petrol bunk failed to meet the specifications and that the petitioner has no plausible explanation there for. According to them, though two samples were left with the petitioner in a sealed condition, one of the aluminum tins in the sealed box was found with pin-holes and that the product was leaking out of it and the other aluminum tin, though not leaking, is said to be having marks of piercing through pin. It is also urged that the action was taken against the petitioner only to ensure supply of pure product to the consumers.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very purpose of leaving samples with the dealer is to ensure that in the event of any discrepancy noticed, the said samples are also sent for analysis. He contends that the reluctance on the part of the respondents to send the sample discloses lack of transparency in the entire issue.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the occasion to send the samples left with the petitioner would have arisen, if only the seals and the container are found intact in all respects. He submits that the tampering of the containers in which the samples were drawn is evident from the fact that holes were found in one of it to the extent of leakage of product.

7. The petitioner is a dealer of the 1st respondent for a fairly long time. It is almost routine and common for the respondents to cause inspection of the petroleum outlets of their dealers, draw samples and get them analysed. One such inspection was caused on 22.10.2005. As required under the relevant guidelines, the samples were drawn in six containers and all of them were perfectly sealed as per the stipulated procedure. Two of them were left with the petitioner. The respondents got the samples taken with them