Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks relief for quashing of the impugned order dated 27th January, 2011 passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby dealership of the petitioner has been terminated, and also seeks a direction upon the respondents to restore the supply of petitioner’s retail outlet forthwith.

2. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner is running a retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short called as the ‘’Corporation’) at Chandpur, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh since the year 1971 after obtaining requisite licence from the Corporation. Petitioner was running the retail outlet with the help of mechanical machines. However, the respondent Corporation decided to replace the old mechanical machines with new electronic machines. Such electronic machine is named and styled as ‘’AVERY & L/T Machine’. In any event, though mechanical machines of the petitioner were replaced by electronic machines but such electronic machines were also used and old, to which when objection was raised by the petitioner, supply of petroleum products to the petitioner’s retail outlet was temporarily stopped by the Corporation for three days. In such circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to accept installation of such old and used machines and it is only thereafter that supply was restored. This fact was informed by the petitioner to the higher authorities of the Corporation. Thereafter, an inspection was made on 26th June, 2008 and it was found that supply from the machines was not proper, with regard to which show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19th August, 2008. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 1st September, 2008. Surprisingly, the dealership of the petitioner was terminated by the impugned order dated 27th January, 2011 after a period of two and half years of submitting the objection with regard to installation of old and used electrical machines for the purpose of supply of petroleum products.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation has contended before this Court that there is no scope of judicial review in such circumstances. Specific case of the Corporation is that dealership was awarded to the petitioner on its assurance that it would operate the dealership as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. In the event of breach of any of the conditions, the dealership would be terminated. The petitioner ensured that it would deliver full and proper measures of petroleum products to the customers and would not interfere with the working part of the outfit i.e. dispensing units. But despite having agreed to said conditions, it was found to have delivered short by 190 ml. per 5 litres to the customers and had installed additional fitting viz. pulsar cable near the control card, which was joined with insulation tape with micro chips in it and the wire was going from the joint to battery switch. This additional fitting was further found to be used for manipulating the deliveries as in on position it would give short delivery and in off position it would give correct delivery. After considering the explanation dated 1st September, 2008 tendered by the petitioner to the show-cause issued on 19th August, 2008 and finding the same not to be satisfactory for the reasons stated in the letter dated 27th January, 2011, the dealership was terminated.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that an inspection was carried out on 20th May, 2008 and shortage of delivery was found, therefore, supply was stopped till calibration is done. After calibration again the machine started working. Again the inspection was made on 26th June, 2008 and shortage of delivery of 190 ml. per 5 litres was found when the battery switch was kept in four positions. However, when the position of battery switch was changed, it was found delivering correct quantity. Thereafter so many allegations were made with regar