By Court - In view of subsequent development, the petitioners now confine their prayer to the extent of quashing the order dated 17th March, 2010 passed by the Territory Manager, Ranchi Territory (Retail) of Bharat Petroleum Corporation limited (BPCL for short).

2. By the said order, the respondents have decided to terminate the dealership agreement of the petitioner.

3. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner no.1-M/s Petroleum Corporation is a partnership firm and licencee to deal with the retail outlet of the petroleum products, such as Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil including petrol and diesel at Nimiaghat, District - Giridih. The licence is granted by the concerned authority under the provisions of Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Licensing Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order 1966') made under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The licence is issued in Form - IV and the application there of is made under Form No.-II as per the provisions of Clause - V of the said Order, 1966. The respondent no. 2 is the Government Company and is authorized supplier of the aforesaid articles to the retail outlet. At the relevant time, the name of the Company was 'Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited'. For the purpose of sale of the said articles and also as one of the conditions of licence agreement, the dealer has to enter into an agreement with the Government Company to supply the said production. Accordingly, the petitioner - Firm had entered into an agreement with the erstwhile 'Burmah - Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited' in the year 1963. On the basis of the agreement, the respondent - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited used to supply the said petroleum products and the petitioner Firm used to sell the same through its retail outlet at Nimiaghat. The petitioner continued the said outlet business till December, 2007. As per the statutory requirement, the licence has to be renewed periodically by filing application in Form, - II and the application is accepted after certification of the supplier. For renewal of licence for 2008, the petitioner - Firm filled up Form - II and submitted the same to respondent no. 2 for signing the certificate, appended to Form - II. The same was not signed and no reason was assigned for not signing the same. The petitioner being aggrieved moved this Court and filed the instant writ petition in 2008.

4. During pendency of this writ petition, the respondents by the impugned order dated 17th March, 2010 took decision to terminate the petitioners' dealership agreement. In view of the said subsequent development It, the petitioners got their prayer amended and challenged the impugned order.

5. The main ground for challenge to the order is that the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing before issuing the said order and the order being violative of the principle of natural justice is non - est.

6. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that there was is latent violation of the principles of natural justice in terminating the dealership agreement by not giving the petitioners sufficient opportunity of hearing.

7. Learned counsel submitted that it is evident from the impugned order dated 17th March, 2010 that the respondents themselves had decided to give an opportunity of hearing and comply with the principles of natural justice. For that purpose, hearing was adjourn on two dates and notice dated 17th April, 2009 was issued to the petitioners fixing 27th April, 2009 for hearing. The petitioners had responded to the said notice and prayed for fixing some other date on the ground that on the same date i.e. 27th April, 2009 the instant writ petition was listed in the Court and the petitioner no. 2 preferred to attend the instant writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that since the said respondents are parties to the writ petition, they had