Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 06.07.2012 of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.9432-33/2005 preferred by the respondents No.1&2, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.07.2003 of the appellant of termination of dealership of the respondents No.1&2. The appellant has accordingly been directed to restore the dealership of the respondent No.2 Sq. Leader K.D. Mehra (Retd.) under the name and style of the respondent No.1, on the Delhi Palam Road, Opposite APS Colony, New Delhi. This appeal came up before us first on 30.07.2012, when files in FIR No.239/2001 registered with Police Station Delhi Cantt. under Sections 420/120B IPC in the case titled State Vs. Bharat Filling Station decided on 01.08.2009 as well as the file of W.Ps.(C) No.3916/2001 and 9432-33/2005 and of LPA No.299/2003 were requisitioned. The appeal was admitted for hearing and with the consent of the parties heard finally.

2. The respondent No.2 was on 11.07.1977 allotted the retail outlet aforesaid for the sale of petroleum and petroleum products on preferential basis in the category of ex-servicemen who have suffered disabilities while in action. The respondent No.2 in or about the year 1995 inducted his son and daughter also as partners in the said business. The site of the retail outlet i.e. the land, machinery and other investment is of the appellant with the respondents No.1&2 being allowed to operate and retail petroleum and petroleum products from the said outlet. The Agreement between the appellant and the respondents No.1&2 was renewed from time to time and was last renewed on 02.06.1999 for a period of five years. On 10.06.2001, the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch, Delhi Police along with officials of the appellant, on the basis of complaint received, inspected the aforesaid retail outlet. The inspection revealed that the 3 Z-line dispensing units (2HSD & 1MS for 2-3 wheelers) were having extra fittings which were not part of the original equipment i.e. an extra switch was installed in the sloping column inside nozzle boot resulting in delivering short supply of 200 ml in every five liters. The officials of Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and Avery responsible for maintaining the dispensing units were summoned who also confirmed the extra switch installed by the respondents No.1&2 in the aforesaid machine to be not part of the original equipment supplied by them. On the basis of this inspection, the respondent No.2 was arrested and the FIR aforesaid lodged.

3. The appellant vide order dated 13.06.2001 terminated the dealership of the respondents No.1&2.

4. The respondents No.1&2 earlier filed W.P.(C) No.3916/2001 in this Court challenging the aforesaid termination. A Single Judge of this Court by order dated 18.03.2003 quashed the order dated 13.06.2011 of termination finding the same to have been made in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the respondents No.1&2 had not been given any opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the appellant, who after termination of dealership of the respondents No.1&2, had started operating the petrol pump itself, was directed to restore the petrol pump to the respondents No.1&2. The appellant was however given liberty to, on the basis of inspection of 10.06.2001, take appropriate action against the respondents No.1&2 after complying with the principles of natural justice.

5. The appellant preferred LPA No.299/2003 against the aforesaid order and vide interim order in which the operation of the judgment of the learned Single judge was stayed. However during the pendency of the LPA, the appellant accorded post decisional hearing to the respondents No.1&2 and whereupon order dated 14.07.2003 supra, again of termination of dealership i.e. in confirmation of the earlier order dated 13.06.2001, was issued. Owing thereto the LPA was disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 18.07.2003 granting leave to the respondents No.1&2