The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of dealership agreements based on alleged adulteration of petroleum products was not valid due to the violation of principles of natural justice and failure to follow the procedures outlined in the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005.

The property bearing Door No.90B, Bhavani Main Road, Bhavani belongs to the petitioner in W.P.No.3914 of 2007, who is the wife of the petitioner in W.P.No.28696 of 2007. While W.P.No.3914 of 2007 filed by the owner is to forbear the first and second respondents, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited from carrying on retail trade in petroleum products in the said premises belonging to her, W.P.No.28696 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the second respondent dated 31. 2007, under which the second respondent while terminating the dealership agreement entered into between the petitioner therein and the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, deputed its Officer to take possession of the retail outlet premises together with attendant facilities like, dispensing pumps, underground tanks, etc. situate in Door No.90B, Bhavani Main Road, Bhavani.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No.28696 of 2007 is the proprietor of his concern, carrying on business as dealer in petroleum products in the said premises for the past five decades. Originally, the petitioner entered into a dealership agreement with ESSO, which was renewed from time to time even after the said ESSO got merged with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the respondent in this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 111. 2006, the second respondent has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on the basis that an inspection was made by the Mobile Lab Officer on 28. 2006, in which sample was taken and sent to the laboratory of the respondents, wherein it was found that the petitioner failed positively in Octane Number Test. It is the case of the petitioner that on the same day, viz., on 28. 2006, the same Officer who had taken the test sample issued a certificate that the sample met the specification. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 20.11.2006. In the said reply, the petitioner has stated that on 8. 2006, he took a full load of both MS and HSD and therefore, the alleged variation found in the inspection is incorrect and according to the petitioner, there cannot be two different results in respect of the same sample and the sample test conducted by the Mobile Lab is faulty and for any error committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made responsible.

.3. It is also his case that at the time of inspection, the petitioner was not present and no samples were given to the petitioner and on many occasions when the tests were done, it was found that there was no adulteration. The inspection was stated to have been carried on 28. 2006, however, the notice was issued on 111. 2006, which according to the petitioner, is with sinister motive of the Corporation. The termination order came to be passed without considering the reply and it is arbitrary. It is the further case of the petitioner that the premises belongs to his wife, the petitioner in W.P.No.3914 of 2007 and therefore, the respondents have no right to trespass into the same in respect of which the petitioners wife had already given a police complaint. According to the petitioner, there is no violation of any condition of dealership agreement.

4. The termination order is also challenged on the legal grounds including that it is against the principles of natural justice; that the respondents have not even taken the sample from the petrol bunk of the petitioner and the records are concocted; that the respondent is under the legal obligation to conduct enquiry before sample was taken and the conduct of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners right in carrying on business violates the right guaranteed under Constitution of India; and the action of the respondents is against the Rule 4. 4 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines.

5. On the other hand, the petitioner in W.P.No.3914 of 2007 is questioning the right of the respondents 1 and 2 from entering into the premises, which belongs to her without her permission