Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. N. Bharali, Advocate. Also heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned senior counsel representing respondent HPCL, assisted by Ms. Y. Saija, Advocate. Mr. K.C. Roy, learned counsel represents the Union of India.

2. Matter pertains to the Dealership Agreement dated 19.11.1997 and termination thereof in respect of the retail outlet of petroleum products, named and styled as M/s. Bani Service Station located at Barpeta, Assam. The genesis of the case relates to the explanation called for from the petitioner vide Letter dated 28.07.2006 issued under the hand of the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (herein after alluded as HPCL). By the said Letter dated 28.07.2006 and in view of the allegations levelled therein, the petitioner was asked to give suitable explanation. Reply was submitted by the petitioner on 09.08.2006 which, however, was not found satisfactory and eventually by Order dated 16.10.2006 the Dealership Agreement dated 19.11.1997 was terminated in terms of Clause 8, 9, 55(A), 55(I) and 55(K) of the Dealership Agreement.

3. The said Order of termination dated 16.10.2006 was put to test in WP(C) 6085/2006. After a detailed discussion on facts and in law the said WP(C) 6085/2006 was allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2007 by setting aside the Order of termination dated 16.10.2006 and also by allowing the petitioner to operate the retail outlet, namely, M/s. Bani Service Station, making it clear that the petitioner shall fulfil all the requirements for running the retail outlet.

4. The order passed in WP(C) 6085/2006 was carried in appeal, being WA 271/2007, by HPCL Ltd. The Division Bench of this Court did not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge but at the same time granted liberty to HPCL Ltd. to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner of being heard in the matter. The said liberty granted was valid for a period of 2 months from the date of the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2013 passed in Writ Appeal 271/2007. A rider was also put that if within the said 2 months, as stipulated, no fresh order is passed, the order of the learned Single Judge would become enforceable.

5. The case having rested thus, the petitioner was served with a Notice/Letter dated 02.05.2013 requesting the petitioner to come for personal hearing on 10.05.2013 at the Regional Office and to reply and submit documents and thereby to explain as to why action under Clause 8, 9, 16, 36, 42 and 55(K) of the dealership agreement should not be taken by HPCL. This Notice dated 02.05.2013 being of utmost relevance for adjudicating upon the present writ petition, the same is extracted here under:-

“Ref: GHRO/RET Date: 02nd May 2013

To

Shri Raja Kakati

S/O Late Ratna Kanta Kakati

House No. 9

Bani Kutir

Piuali Phukan Road

REhabari, Guwahati

Pin: 781008

Ref: Order dated 03/04/2013 by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the WA No. 271/2007 HPCL-Vs. Shri Raja Kakati & Ors.

Dear Sir,

Please refer order dated 03.04.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in the Writ Appeal (WA) filed by the Corporation. Copy of the Order dated 03.04.2013 is attached for your ready reference.

In compliance of said order dated 03.04.2013, we propose to take a fresh decision in the matter which may even include termination of the retail outlet dealership agreement and, thus, you are requested to come for personal hearing on 10.05.2013 at 11 A.M. at our Regional Office address along with your reply and documents in support thereof as to why necessary action should not be taken by the Corporation interalia under clauses 8, 9, 16, 36 & 42 and 55(K) of the said dealership agreement.

Thanking you,

Avijit Bhattacharjee

Sr. Regional Manager”

6. While replying to the said notice dated 02.05.2013, the petitioner took a categorical stand that the said Notice/Letter dated 02.05.2013 was shorn