Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 to 6. Mr. H. Das, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent no. 7.

2. By filing the present writ petition, the order dated 20/09/2012 terminating the Petroleum retail outlet dealership of the writ petitioner as well as the order dated 22/05/2013 rejecting the appeal preferred by her has been put under challenge.

2.1 The brief facts of the case is that the writ petitioner herein was awarded with the dealership of a retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) at Silchar town vide order dated 27/11/1993, pursuant whereto, the petitioner had established a petrol pump in the name of M/s. Saradamani Filling Concern at Tarapur area of Silchar town, in the district of Cachar. As per the existing norms, there was a need to periodically recalibrate the Dispensing Unit (DU) of the petrol pump and since the existing certificate was due to expire on 30/11/2011, hence, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 28/11/2011 to the Legal Meteorological Department (W&M Department) informing the authorities that she would be travelling to Kolkata on 09/12/2011 in connection with her medical treatment and, therefore, the re-calibration exercise be carried out in her presence before the said date. The W & M Department visited the petrol pump of the petitioner on 10/12/2011 and thereafter, carried out the re-calibration exercise by opening the machine. On completion of the process, W & M Department sealed the D.U by following the usual process. The aforesaid exercise was carried out in presence of Mr. Gaurav Suman, who is the representative of the Original Equipment Service Engineer (OEM) which had supplied and installed the machinery. Duringthe re-calibration process exercise carried out by W & M Department on 10/12/2011, nothing unusual was found. However, on 13/12/2011, i.e. three days later, a team of the Anti- Adulteration Cell (AAC) of the IOCL had visited the petitioner’s petrol pump, opened the DU and thereafter had reportedly found an additional fitting in the MSDU. However, the AAC Unit had found that the seal put by the W & M Department was intact. On 13/12/2011, the IOCL authorities suspended the operation of the petrol pump and thereafter, called for an explanation from the petitioner vide letter dated 19/12/2011. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner had submitted her reply on 28/12/2011 denying the allegations levelled against her. In her reply, the petitioner had also mentioned that she suspect foul play by her Manager, who could be involved in illegal activities.

3. The IOCL authorities had thereafter constituted a Joint Inspection Committee which had visited the site on 25/03/2012 and on completion of inspection, submitted a report wherein it has been mentioned that there was additional/unauthorised gear in the DU of the petitioner’s petrol pump by means of which it was possible to manipulate the actual quantity of MS Oil, thereby indulging in short supply of petrol. On the basis of the said report of the Joint Inspection Committee, a show cause notice dated 08/06/2012 was served upon the petitioner calling upon her to show cause as to why the dealership should not be terminated. The petitioner had submitted her reply on 21/06/2012 denying the allegations levelled therein. Notwithstanding the same, the IOCL authorities had issued the order dated 20/09/2012 terminating the dealership of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner had thereafter preferred an appeal on 10/10/2012 assailing the order of termination dated 20/09/2012. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the order dated 22/05/2013. Hence, this writ petition.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that sealing of the DU of a petrol pump b