Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—M/s. Satyam Filling Station, Jhansi has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 22nd September, 2008 passed by the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lucknow by which the dealership agreement of the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 4th April, 2009 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Executive Director of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2. The petitioner was appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation as its dealer for the retail sale or supply of Petrol/HSD/Motor Oil/Grease and on 14th March, 2005 the dealership agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation.

3. On 9th December, 2007 the retail outlet of the petitioner was inspected by M/s. S.G.S. India Pvt. Ltd., the authorised representative of the Indian Oil Corporation for conducting marker tests at retail outlets, and the following irregularities/malpractices were observed :

1. HSD sample drawn from the Retail Outlet of the petitioner failed in the Marker Test conducted at the retail outlet on December 9, 2007 by M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd.

2. The last load Tank Truck retention sample was not available at the retail outlet of the petitioner at the time of inspection and the same has been duly acknowledged by the representative of the petitioner present at the retail outlet at the time of inspection.

4. On the basis of the inspection made on 9th December, 2007, a show cause notice dated 10th December, 2007 was issued to the petitioner and the supply to the retail outlet was also suspended.

5. In line with the Marketing Guideline, 2005 and the subsequent amendment dated 15th January, 2007, the second sample of HSD collected by M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. from the retail outlet of the petitioner was tested at Kanpur terminal on 17th December, 2007 in the presence of the authorised representatives of the petitioner. This sample also failed the Marker Test. However, the supply location sample at the Kanpur Terminal passed the Marker Test done on 17th December, 2007. Accordingly, another show cause notice dated 20th December, 2007 was issued to the petitioner to file a reply within seven days as to why action be not taken against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 17th March, 2008. A show cause notice dated 2nd May, 2008 was then issued to the petitioner for affording final opportunity to submit a reply and the petitioner submitted a reply dated 9th May, 2008.

6. The General Manager, U.P. State Office by the order dated 22nd September, 2008 terminated the dealership of the petitioner with immediate effect and the relevant portion of the order is quoted below :

“At the outset, it is stated with regard to your contention that your representative who was present at the RO at the time of inspection on December 9, 2007 was not competent enough to understand the proceedings i.e. the marker test which was conducted at your RO by M/s. SGS, is unfounded and devoid of any merit. It is herein relevant to note that as per clause 46 & 49 of the Dealership Agreement dated March, 14, 2005, the dealer is required to supervise the Retail Outlet activities personally and has to maintain adequate and competent staff to attend to various Retail Outlet activities. Similarly, with respect to your allegation that the signature of your representative was taken on the blank form, it is stated that no person of ordinary and reasonable prudence working at a retail outlet shall sign on a blank form, moreover knowing the fact that this might go against them. So your allegation appears to be unfounded and can not be sustained either by documentary evidence or otherwise.

As far as your contention regarding representatives of M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. demanding illegal gratification i.e. money is concerned, it is stated that you have failed to support the same with any documentary evidence or other