R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(2.)By an agreement dated 31st day of March, 1994 entered into between the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and the appellants, the appellants were appointed dealer in petroleum products. It appears that on 15-12-1999, officers of the respondent-Corporation visited the retail outlet of the appellants. An inspection was carried out. On 24-1-2000, the Corporation served a show cause notice on the appellants requiring them to explain why density record was not maintained on day-to-day basis as, on 15-12-1999, density up to 9-12-1999 was only recorded in the density register and, secondly, why the appellants did not co-operate with the officers who had come to inspect the retail outlet and rather used un-parilamentary language and displayed discourteous behaviour. On 2-2-2002, the appellants sent a reply. The matter rested at that.
(3.)On 11-2-2000, sample of SKO was taken jointly by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and officials of the respondent-Corporation and sent to Kanpur laboratory of the respondent whereat the sample was received on 13-3-2000 and subjected to Lab. test on 18-3-2000. The only infirmity found in the sample was that automatic viscosity at 40º should have been within the range of 1.8 to 5.0 but was found to be 1.758. On 22-3-2000, the appellants were served with a show cause notice requiring them to explain why the sample drawn from their outlet did not satisfy and match with the standard specifications. The appellants sent a reply raising a few objections. The correctness of the test report was disputed. The appellants were served with a termination order dated 6-9-2000 whereby the appellants dealership has been terminated forthwith. In the earlier part of the notice there is a casual reference that the monthly sales during the last year were not satisfactory that there were malpractices at the appellants outlet that the density register was not found to be properly filed during the inspection held on 15-12-1999 and on that day the appellants misbehaved with the officers of the respondent. However, these are not relied on as the ground for cancellation of the dealership. What has been relied on is the failure of the sample taken from the appellants outlet consequent whereupon supply to the appellants outlet was suspended. The State Government acting through the Collector of the District suspended the appellants licence which authorized them to deal in petroleum products and also imposed a fine on them.