K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The appeal impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge which found that the respondent-Corporation passed an order of termination of dealership, over-reaching the orders dated 06.10.2020 and 07.02.2023 passed in the instant writ petition; but however left liberty to the respondent-Corporation to issue a fresh show-cause notice on the same cause of action.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Smt. Nivedita Nirvikar pointed out that the very contentions taken in the writ petition against the two show-cause notices issued were not considered. A fresh show-cause notice if at all issued will be on the same cause of action, which need not be freshly agitated before the Corporation since the Corporation by the repeated show-cause notices has revealed its prejudiced mind to somehow cancel the allotment of a petrol pump to the appellant, which allotment was also in the year 2016 pursuant to an advertisement of the year 2014. As of now the third show cause notice has been issued, produced in this appeal which is on the identical facts and a verbatim reproduction of the earlier notice. The allotment, now sought to be cancelled, was made to the appellant as a dependent of a government servant, based on the death certificate issued by the Principal/Headmaster of the School in which the father of the appellant was employed. At that point, the Corporation had sought for clarification from the Principal of the School regarding the issuance of the certificate as also its genuineness; which were affirmed by the Principal based on which the letter of appointment was granted in the year 2016. The appellant had been successfully carrying on the petrol pump without any complaints when the Corporation published a second advertisement for allotment of retail outlets, against which the petitioner also applied, based on the very same dependency clause.

3. The advertisement of the year 2018 led to an application in which a certificate of the year 2019 was produced from the Principal. At this instance, finding that the date of death of the appellant’s father was a Sunday, the Corporation sought a clarification from the District Education Officer (DEO) as to whether his father was on duty on the said day. The appellant filed an objection with the BPCL and the BPCL constituted a two-men committee to look into two aspects; one as to who is the competent authority to issue a certificate after the death of the government employee and whether the appellant’s father indeed passed away while on duty; as claimed. The DEO communicated to the Committee that the appellant’s father passed away while he was in service, while the Principal of the School issued a letter that the appellant’s father was not on duty, on the date of his death. A further clarification was issued by the DEO indicating that the petitioner’s father did not die while on duty; since 23.09.1984 was a Sunday and the Competent Authority to issue a death certificate is the Registrar of the Gram Panchayat.

4. Based on the above facts, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant produced as Annexure-A4 dated 29.08.2020 against which the petitioner filed the writ petition wherein by order dated 06.10.2020, there were directions issued; to the appellant to reply to the show-cause notice, the respondents to file a counter affidavit and no coercive steps in the meantime. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents and on 21.12.2020, the Director, Primary Education responded to a clarification sought by the BPCL that as per Rule 184 of the Bihar Service Code, even holidays are treated as period of duty. Again on 13.01.2021, this Court raised relevant issues arising in the case as to whether, the death on a Sunday can be treated as death on duty and directed the interim order to continue. The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 15.01.2021 and later on 15.01.2022, the show-cause notice was withdrawn.

5. The BPCL again approached the DEO seeking a verification of the