O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) The petitioner. M/s. Kamla Motors and Engineering Works, which is a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of sale of Motor Spirit (for short 'MS'), High Speed Diesel (for short 'HSD') and lubricants. The firm entered into an agreement dated 21.12.1972 as a licensee of Indo-Burma Petroleum Company Ltd., which was subsequently taken over by the Government of India through Acquisition Act and is now called as IBP Co., Ltd., for sale of the aforesaid -products. The petitioner has a petrol pump at Bridh Ghat, Gorakhpur. A copy of the agreement dated 21.12.1972 containing the terms and conditions, on which both the parties have placed reliance, is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Clause 9 (e) of the agreement requires the petitioner : "to take every reasonable precaution against contamination of the products supplied by the company by water, dirt or other things injurious to their quality and not in any way directly or indirectly alter the company's standard quality of products as delivered. The company shall have the right to exercise at their discretion quality control measures for products marketed by the company." By virtue of the provision made in clause 9 (s) of the agreement, the respondent-company is at liberty to stop all supplies to the licensee for such period as the company may think fit, if there is a breach of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement by the licensee.
(2.) It appears that a sample of MS was drawn from the retail outlet of the petitioner on 29.11.1999 by a Joint Inspection Team. The sample was sent for test report. The MS sample taken from the retail outlet of the petitioner did not meet the specifications in respect of Research Octane Number (popularly known as 'RON'). It was noticed that the petitioner committed breach of terms and conditions contained in clause 9 (e) of the dealership agreement as well as violated rules and the guidelines, and accordingly the impugned order dated 19.12.1999. Annexure-1 to the writ petition was passed whereby the petitioner was required to explain the reasons for failure of the sample. Sales and supplies of MS at the retail outlet of the petitioner were also suspended w.e.f. 16.12.1999. It is this order which has been challenged in the present petition on a variety of grounds. In substance, the case of the petitioner is that the MS sample, which was taken on 29.11.1999 from Its retail outlet, was the same as was supplied by the respondent-company and that the petitioner has taken all reasonable precautions against the contamination of the products as supplied by the company and if the sample has failed in meeting the specifications in respect of RON, it was not on account of any adulteration on the part of the petitioner. It is averred that the MS sample has withstood the test of scrutiny in all other respects, except that it allegedly failed to meet RON test for which the respondent-company has no facility. The petitioner asserts that it has not committed breach of any of the terms and conditions contained in the agreement, or violated the relevant Control Orders and guidelines issued by the Central Government and other authorities.
(3.) During the pendency of this petition, the respondent also suspended the supply and sale of HSD w.e.f. 5.1.2000. A copy of the said order, which is also the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition, has been brought on record as Annexure-S.A. 1 with the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the amendment application. As the things stand, the petitioner has now come to challenge two separate orders dated 16.12.1999 and 5.1.2000 by which the supply and sale of MS and HSD have been suspended.;