JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J.

1. The writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Appellate Committee which was constituted by the respondent authority in terms of the solemn order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in MAT No. 1188 of 2013. A review application was also purportedly filed by the writ petitioner/appellant before the Appellate Committee, but the same was not disposed of.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petition submitted as follows. On 02.11.1998 an agreement was executed by and between Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. (BPCL for short) and Sankar Filling Centre (an unregistered firm) represented by its partners for running a petrol pump at 73D, Narkeldanga, Main Road, Kolkata – 700 054. There was no allegation about adulteration of petrol or diesel of the said petrol pump till 03.12.2007. Since before independence, the petitioner’s father was running a petrol pump under the then Burma Shell at Jessore, now in Bangladesh. After independence, the petitioner’s father, since deceased, was running petrol pump at the present site. As such, there is a reputation in their business. On 03.12.2007 a person of the SGS India Pvt. Ltd. claiming to be an authorized agent of the BPCL collected and tested by way of ‘Marker’ test and told that HSD was found adulterated, without giving sample of the drawn sample of HSD from the petrol pump to the petitioner. The sales and supply to the petitioner’s pump was suspended. The petitioner had suspicion from the very beginning. Subsequently, market test was allegedly conducted in the laboratory of the BPCL. Thereafter, the BPCL issued show cause notice to the petitioner’s firm. A reply was given by the petitioner. On 07.12.2007 the petitioner made a representation for clinical test, because there is a provision for clinical test in the Marketing Discipline Guidelines of the Oil Company, 2005. Market Test was introduced in the year 2007 and the same was withdrawn on 01.01.2009 by all the oil companies. The petitioner preferred the first writ petition before this Court challenging the authority of the SGS. The said writ petition was dismissed on contest. The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the said dismissal order before this Court. The said appeal was dismissed. On 05.12.2009 the BPCL took physical possession of the petrol pump without raising any objection. However, a complaint case bearing No. C/24950 of 2009 under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. was initiated by the petitioner before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata and against one Kanyalal Pandit of the SGS Ltd. The C.M.M was inclined to direct the concerned police to investigate into the matter and to file a report. The police during the course of presence of investigation drew the sample from the HSD tank of petitioner’s petrol pump of oil company and sample was sent to the National Laboratory for clinical test. Clinical test was done and the police after collecting report, submitted the same before the Court. There it was reported that the sample met the requirements of IS:1460 – 2005 specification for Automotive Diesel Fuel in Bharat Stage – II Grade only. The HSD was kept in an iron tank, which was kept underground and by natural course, the quality of the HSD would be decayed. As such, clinical report said that “Specification for Automotive Diesel Fuel in Bharat Stage-II Grade only” which was as per Marketing Discipline Guide Line for RO/SKO dealership of public sector oil marketing companies. On 5th December 2009 by a letter the BPCL unilaterally terminated the agreement dated 24th November, 1998. On 2nd May, 2011 the petitioner made a representation before the BPCL for reconsideration of their decision. Subsequently, the petitioner called at the office of the BPCL and enquired about the fact of his representation and came to know that the BPCL was going to create third party interest. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being WP No. 8155 (W) of 2011 challenging the said t