S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petitioner has questioned the decision communicated to it by the respondents namely the Indian Oil Corporation and the Delhi development Authority (hereafter referred to as IOL and DDA, respectively)cancelling the allotment of the lease in respect of site No. 2, Vasant Vihar allotted for a SKO/ldo godown.

( 2 ) ONE Shri Bhoop Singh had been granted allotment of a site, for the purpose of SKO/ldo storage on 6. 12. 1995. The allotment letter specified that the premises of the storage would not be used for any other purpose; condition 6 stipulated that the building on the plot was to be constructed as per approved specifications, after permission by the DDA and the Delhi urban Arts Commission. After the appeal of the said allottee/licensee Shri bhoop Singh the dealership was transferred to one Virender Sharma, IOC with consent of DDA and possession was handed over to the authorized representative of IOC on 24. 4. 1998 for storage of Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO)/low Density Oil (LDO) at the site. The petitioner firm is the proprietorship concern of Virender Sharma; it claims to have been carrying on business activities, in furtherance to the dealership agreement with IOC. It claims that on 28. 8. 2005 it received a letter from IOC for the first time, communicating that the license fee to the DDA had not been paid for use of the site. It is claimed that the petitioner approached the IOC but did not make any written representation/communication. On 24. 5. 2005 the impugned letter was issued by the IOC, informing that the allotment to the site had been cancelled by the DDA and that possession ought to be handed over by 30. 5. 2005 failing which coercive action to take possession would be 'initiated. The petitioner approached this court questioning the said letter dated 24. 5. 2005. It is alleged that the letter dated 28. 2:2005 informing about arrears of license fee mentioned the figure to be Rs. 7,99,351/-, payable to the DDA, as on 31. 12. 2003. The petitioner claims that the margin towards commission available for sale of SKO was very low and that the quota having been declined from 220 KL to 280 KL per month, it was difficult to sustain the overheads like license fee etc. It is claimed therefore that the petitioner had requested for waiver of license fee. It is further claimed that the allegation that certain unauthorized constructions having been undertaken upon the site was without basis since the construction had been approved pursuant to specifications of the IOL and permission was granted in that regard. In its letter dated 24. 5. 2005 to the IOC it also took the position that there was about 12 KL of LDO was stored in the underground tanks besides 200 KL lube.

( 3 ) THE impugned cancellation has been attacked as arbitrary and void, as it was not preceded by any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing. It is also averred that the allegation levelled by the IOC that no activity at the site existed was contrary to the record. The IOL itself was supplying its products which were being sold in retail from the site. If the DDA had alleged that no activity was taking place, the IOL should have responded appropriately, revealing that it was making effective regular supplies. It has also been alleged that the IOC has taken advantage of its position as a lesseee and not responded properly to the DDA, thus causing prejudice and loss to the petitioner which is indicative of conspiracy. The order has therefore been questioned as arbitrary.

( 4 ) THE IOC in its reply as alleged that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of certain communications, particularly letters dated 24. 3. 2004 and 3. 5. 2004 whereby it was categorically informed that a three storeyed building has been constructed without authorization or approval and that even by letter dated 30. 1,2003, the IOC had informed outstanding dues to the extent of Rs. 7,81,286a payable in addition to interest, by the petitioner. This was acc