JUDGMENT :

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

We have heard Mr. P.C Kavina, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Bijal Chhatrapati & Mr. A.M. Hawa, learned advocates for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - original respondent no. 2, Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Jal Soli Unwala, learned advocate for Shree Vasudev Transport - original petitioner, Mr. I.H. Saiyed, learned advocate appearing for Union of India.

2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 473 of 2010 has been filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - original respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 474 of 2010 has been filed by Mr. Meghal Thakkar, Proprietor of Shree Vasudev Transport - original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the original petitioner). These intra-court Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 03/04.02.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9548 of 2009 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Corporation to reconsider the matter and take appropriate decision in light of the observations made therein above and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the order passed in the writ petition.

3. The original petitioner had preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the order dated 04.09.2009 in connection with the show cause notices dated 01.08.2006, 07.12.2006 & 24.05.2007 pursuant to which the Corporation terminated the licence agreement with immediate effect and further restrained the original petitioner from entering upon or making any attempt to enter the retail outlet.

4. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as pleaded before the learned Single Judge are as follows:

4.1 The original petitioner - Shri Meghal Thakkar who is the Proprietor of Shree Vasudev Transport purchased land being Plot No.4/A, situated at Akota, Taluka Vadodara from one Jasumatiben Chandrakant Shah as well as Jayshree Dilip Sheth on 27.11.2003. He was granted licence on 20.11.2005 by the Corporation and based on the said licence, an agreement was entered into pursuant to which the original petitioner was doing business of distribution of petrol and diesel and other items.

4.2 On 26.05.2006, sample was drawn from petrol pump (popularly known as "retail outlet") run by the original petitioner and sent to the laboratory for testing. The said sample did not meet with the requisite standard of RON (Research Octane Number) for minimum requirement of 88 and in the report dated 10.07.2006, it was found as 83.0. The Corporation, therefore, issued show-cause notice for taking action. It also appears that thereafter, on the basis of the request made by the original petitioner, another sample which was retained by the Territory Manager was sent for laboratory testing and as per the report dated 01.11.2006, it was found that the RON found was that of 87 as against the minimum requirement of 88. Based on the report, an explanation was called for from the original petitioner by the Corporation. Thereafter, third part of sample which was retained by the original petitioner was sent to the laboratory for testing and vide report dated 25.04.2007, the said RON was found to be 87.6 as against the minimum requirement of 88.

4.3 The Corporation also called for the explanation of the original petitioner based on the third report. The original petitioner submitted explanation in response to the show cause notices as well as the further correspondences entered into by the Corporation based on the subsequent reports. Ultimately, the respondent Corporation vide decision dated 04.09.2009, communicated to the original petitioner for termination of the contract entered into as per the agreement with immediate effect. It is under these circumst