The main legal point established in the judgment is that the marker test conducted in accordance with the Control Order 2005 and Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005 is a valid and effective method for detecting adulteration, justifying the termination of the dealership.

Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Imran Sayeed for the petitioners and Sri V.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prakash Padia for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a retail outlet dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. challenging the order dated 14.3.2009 by which dealership of retail outlet has been terminated by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation.

Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner was appointed as retail outlet dealer on 2.5.1977. The dealership between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation is being governed by the contract in writing. Last such a contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation on 4.4.2003. An inspection of the petitioner's retail outlet which is situated at Hanumanganj, district Allahabad was conducted by M/s SGS India Private Ltd. authorised by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation for such purpose on 3.12.2008. During inspection sample of motor spirit and high speed diesel oil was taken by the inspection team. A test known as marker test was conducted at the outlet of the petitioner in which sample of motor spirit failed, the traces of marker were found in the petrol confirming adulteration. sample from the nozzle of dispensing pump including T.T. sample were taken. The samples collected were tested in the laboratory of the corporation at Mughalsarai in the presence of the petitioner and the transporter. Sample of motor spirit was found adulterated. The supply of petroleum products was suspended on 3.12.2008 itself. A show cause notice dated 9.1.2009 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the dealership be not terminated. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice vide his letter dated 19.1.2009. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being writ petition No. 3568 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.1.2009 stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 3.12.2008, passed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and respondents were directed to resume supply of the petitioner forthwith. Against the order dated 28.1.2009, passed by the Division Bench S.L.P.(C) No. 4543 of 2009 was filed in which S.L.P. leave was granted and the order of the High Court dated 28.1.2009 was set aside and High Court was directed to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the parties. On 14.3.2009, the Corporation terminated the petitioner's dealership hence, writ petition No. 3568 of 2009 was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order terminating the dealership.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.3.2009, terminating the petitioner's dealership. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.

Sri Ravikant, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned order submitted that the entire exercise of inspection, taking of sample and the report of laboratory have been done in flagrant breach of the Government orders and the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005. It is contended that inspection, seizure and sampling of the petrol and diesel have to be carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005. It is submitted that under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Central Government has issued a Control Order namely; Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005. Clause 7 of which order provides that power of search and seizure can be exercised only by Gazetted Officers of the Central Government or State Government or any police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any officer of the oil company not below the rank of Sales Officer. It is submitted that inspection having not been conducted in acco