First petitioner is the partnership firm and second petitioner is one of the partners in the partnership firm. This writ petition is instituted by the petitioners assailing the Order, dated 16.09.2013 passed by the Executive Director (Retail Sales) of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, terminating the dealership agreement of the petitioners.

2. In April, 2011, respondent-corporation appointed the first petitioner as Dealer in Petrol (Motor Spirit) and High Speed Diesel Oil (Retail Outlet). On 21.04.2011, an agreement was signed between the first petitioner and the respondent corporation. The agreement incorporates various clauses, which bind both the parties. In terms thereof, the first petitioner is operating the Retail outlet. In addition to clauses in the agreement, dealer is also bound by Marketing Discipline Guidelines.

3. On 05.02.2013, inspection was conducted by the Anti Adulteration Cell. During inspection, the Anti Adulteration Cell noticed additional unauthorized electronic fitting in Midco MMSH 1112 ASPI 07ECO591V). This unauthorized electronic fitting was noticed in dispensing unit.Samples were collected. By order, dated 06.02.2013, first petitioner was advised not to dispense fuel from this Dispensing unit. First petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation on finding of unauthorized electronic part. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. First petitioner expressed his ignorance about the alleged additional unauthorized fitting in the dispensing unit. First petitioner stated that he was not technically qualified and competent to know the functioning of electronic units and the relevancy of such unit. It is also pointed out that as per the samples taken prior to opening of dispensing unit and after, found that delivery was accurate and there was no variation in the delivery. First petitioner was also afforded personal hearing. First petitioner has taken the same plea during the personal hearing and in his written submissions. On all aspects, the findings are favourable to the petitioners. However, since unauthorized electronic unit was found in dispensing unit, first petitioner was held guilty by invoking Clauses 7(a) and (b), 8(i) and 42 of the Dealership agreement and Clause 5.4.1 of Marketing Discipline Guidelines and the dealership was terminated.

4. Heard learned senior counsel Sri E.Manohar for Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, counsel for the respondent-corporation.

5. Learned Senior counsel submits that order of termination of the dealership is based on surmises and conjunctures and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. He submits that having agreed with the submissions of the dealer as with reference to the functioning of the dispensing unit, delivery system and performance of the dealer during the subsistence of the dealership, erred in holding that dealer is guilty on the ground that unauthorized electronic part was noticed in the dispensing unit. He submits that the order is non-speaking order as it does not assign reasons attributing the involvement of the first petitioner in inserting the unauthorized object in the dispensing unit. The order impugned is made in arbitrary exercise of power; is ex facie illegal. On account of such illegal actions, petitioners are deprived of right to livelihood. Learned senior counsel further submits that clause 5.1.4 of Marketing Discipline Guidelines has no application to the facts of the case as there was no allegation of tampering.

6. Learned senior counsel further contends that when petitioner has taken specific plea that petitioner was not aware of such unauthorized part and manufacturer is responsible, no effort is made to ascertain from manufacturer. The dispensing unit is supplied and maintained by a company, by name, Midco. No effort is made to find out from the company as to how the said additional unit is found in the dispensing unit, more particularly when there was no allegatio