Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri M.D. Singh ‘Shekhar’, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and learned Additional Solicitor General of India for Union of India.

2. Petitioner was appointed as dealer for sale of oil and oil products of Indo-Burmah Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short ‘IBP Corporation’) under letter of the Divisional Manager, IBP Corporation dated 31st October, 2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). An agreement was also executed between the petitioner and IBP Corporation on 31st October, 2005 (as is admitted in paragraph-4 of the writ petition), a copy of the same has been produced before this Court at the time of hearing (neither the execution nor the terms and conditions of the agreement are in dispute between the parties.

3. IBP Corporation has since been merged with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. with all rights and obligations. The dealers appointed by the IBP Corporation are treated to be the dealers of Indian Oil Corporation on same terms and conditions. There is no dispute in that regard between the parties.

4. On 25th June, 2007 samples of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel were drawn from the nozzle of the delivery pump established at the retail outlet of the petitioner. A ‘Marker Test’ was carried out by the representatives of SGS India Private Limited. On 26th June, 2007, sales and supplies of the petroleum products from the retail outlet of the petitioner was suspended as the samples failed the Marker Test, under order of the Deputy Manager (Retail Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Varanasi. On 28th June, 2007, the petitioner is stated to have sent a letter to the Indian Oil Corporation with a prayer that fresh inspection should be made and samples be drawn in the presence of the petitioner. This was followed by another letter dated 16th August, 2007 for the said purpose.

5. However, under letter dated 11th October, 2007, the petitioner was invited to appear for testing of the second sample drawn on 25th June, 2007 at the laboratory at Mughalsarai Terminal on 15th October, 2007 at the time fixed. Laboratory test of the retained sample was done at Maghalsarai Terminal on 15th October, 2007 in the presence of the representative of the petitioner and the samples again failed the Marker Test.

6. For the purposes of carrying out the Marker Test after nearly five months of the date on which the samples were drawn from the Nozzle of the retail outlet of the petitioner at Mughalsarai Terminal, approval was also obtained from the competent authority, which added a note that for delay of five months, explanation of the officers concerned be called for.

7. On the basis of the failure of the samples, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit a written explanation for the irregularities mentioned in notice itself within ten days, failing which the Corporation will have no other option but to take action against the dealership of the petitioner as per Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005 and relevant clauses of standard dealership agreement.

8. Petitioner instead of submitting his reply to the notice issued filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52580 of 2007, which was disposed vide order dated 30th October, 2007 by providing that the petitioner may submit his reply within ten days from the date of order and General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., U.P. State Office-II, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow was directed to conclude the proceedings within fifteen days thereafter.

9. Petitioner submitted his reply to the notice so issued vide letter dated 5th November, 2007 and pointed out that under Clause-2.10 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, samples collected from the retail outlet of the petitioner should have reach the laboratory for testing, within ten days and the testing must have been carried out at the laboratory