Hon’ble Sushil Harkauli, J.—Heard Shri U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Vishnu Gupta for the petitioners, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Prakash Padia for respondents No. 2 to 4 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner No. 1 is a petrol pump and petitioner No. 2 is the Proprietor of the said petrol pump. This retail outlet is of the Indian Oil Corporation (called the ‘Corporation’ for short hereinafter).

3. The Corporation has given the agency to the petitioners under a written agreement. On 29.4.2008, the officials of M/s. S.G.S. India Pvt. Ltd. visited the retail outlet of the petitioners for conducting ‘marker test’.

4. It may be mentioned here that ‘marker’ is a chemical mixed with Kerosene oil to prevent adulteration of other petroleum products by mixing them with subsidized low cost Kerosene oil. The testing of petroleum products by marker test makes the testing item turned pink if marker is present in the petroleum products.

5. In the petitioners’ case the HSD (High Speed Diesel) and Xtra mile sample drawn from the petitioners’ retail outlet failed in the marker test, i.e. these items were found adulterated with marker mixed Kerosene oil. Consequently, the Corporation stopped the supply of petroleum products to the petitioners’ retail outlet and ordered the petitioner to maintain status quo, i.e. to stop the sale of petroleum products in the stock of the petitioners.

6. The petitioners challenged the order of stopping of supplies by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24154 of 2008. Subsequently, a show-cause notice dated 5.5.2008 was issued to the petitioners by the Corporation regarding the adulteration found in the petrol pump at the petitioners’ retail outlet. According to the petitioners, the said show cause notice was not received by the petitioners, and the petitioners came to know of the show cause notice through the counter-affidavit filed by the Corporation in the said Writ Petition No. 24154 of 2008. Thereupon the petitioner filed the second Writ Petition No. 45095 of 2008 on 28.8.2008 challenging the show cause notice. In the meantime, on 22.5.2008, a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order in Writ Petition No. 24154 of 2008 directing the respondent-authorities to permit the petitioners to operate the petrol pump and to resume the supply. This order was passed on the argument (mentioned in that order) that the chemical analysis report had not been made available to the petitioners and no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioners. Later, the Corporation pointed out that the said interim order dated 22-5-2008 had been passed behind its back due to oversight as on that date a counter affidavit had already been filed by the Corporation in that writ petition enclosing the show cause notice and giving all the other relevant facts. Upon this another interim order was passed on 8.8.2008 suspending the operation of the order dated 22.5.2008 and directing the petitioners or their authorized representative to appear at the testing laboratory in Mughalsarai on 13.8.2008 at 10.00 A.M. The Corporation was directed by the said order dated 8.8.2008 to ensure arrangements for testing of the sample drawn from the petitioners’ outlet, being done on that very day and a copy of the testing report being supplied to the petitioners at the petrol pump or at the residence on 18.8.2008. It was also directed by the said order dated 8.8.2008 that a copy of that report should be filed by the Corporation with a supplementary affidavit on the next date of listing the case and the petitioners were also given the liberty to file their objections, if any, to the testing report. The matter was fixed for 22.5.2008 for orders. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned giving further time to the parties and the suspension of the interim order dated 22.5.2008 by order dated 8.8.2008 was continued.

7. It has been alleged by the Corporation that they had made the necessary arrangement at