The Executive Magistrate had the authority to inspect the premises under Clause 12 of the Licensing Order and the inspection report was not vitiated. The grounds for cancellation of the license were not non-existent or imaginary and the shortage of petrol and diesel was not a small quantity. The termination of the dealership agreement was a fresh cause of action that could not be challenged in the writ petition since it was a private contract between the Company and its agent.

1. All the three appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19.4.1994. passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12040 of 1992 by the learned single judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by respondent on. 1 has been allowed and the orders impugned dated 3.6.1992 and 21.10.1992, contained in Annexures 4 and 5 respectively therein, have been quashed. As such, the said appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. While admitting L.P.A. No. 77 of 1994 on 20.9.1994 this Court directed that meanwhile, the Corporation respondent, who was appellant in L.P.A. No. 77 of 1994, will be at liberty to see that the petrol pump in question functions on temporary basis subject to the result of the appeal.

3. In the writ petition the writ petitioner assailed the validity of the aforementioned orders, contained in Annexures 4 and 5, passed by the District Transport Officer and the Appellate Authority respectively. By the order dated 3.6.1992, the licence granted to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Bihar Motor Spirit & High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers Licensing Order (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order) was cancelled and the same was affirmed by order dated 21.10.1992 passed by the appellate authority on appeal preferred by him.

4. In short, the relevant facts are that the present dispute relates to a Petrol Pump situated at Saheed Road, P.S. Kotwali in the town and district of Gaya for which originally dealership was granted to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 by the Corporation. A licence to deal with petrol and diesel was also granted under the Licensing Order in the name and style "M/s. Jain Petrol Supply Company". On expiry of the licence, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 filed an application for renewal for the year 1991-92. On 7.2.1992, the Petrol Pump was inspected and on inspection by the Executive Magistrate, Gaya along with the Supply Inspector and the Deputy Controller, Weights and Measures, 1033 litres of petrol and 304 litres of diesel were found short. Accordingly, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was directed to close the sale of petrol and diesel and subsequently F.I.R. was also lodged against the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pursuant to which a criminal case is still pending against him.

5. On the basis of the said inspection a show cause notice was also served on the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 by the District Transport Officer asking him as to why his licence be not cancelled on the grounds of shortage found in the stock of petrol and diesel. It is alleged that the Manager had fled away with the stock register, sale register and cash memos. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 filed his show cause denying the charges and, further, stating that the allegations against him were made on the basis of suspicion and surmises. The District Transport Officer, vide his order dated 31.3.1991, cancelled the licence of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 on finding the show cause not satisfactory. The validity of this order was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 3298 of 1992 in which, vide order dated 29.4.1992, the cancellation order was quashed with a liberty to the licensing authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6. Thereafter the licensing authority issued another show cause notice to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 in which besides the aforementioned facts it is also alleged that the two machines installed-one for petrol and other for diesel-were found defective and not working and that the said shortage was because of sale by him in black-market. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 submitted his show cause denying the charges. The District Transport Officer on consideration of the said show cause of the writ petitioner respondent No. 1 declined to renew the licence and cancelled his licence granted earlier, vide order dated 3.6