- (1.) This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful writ- petitioners and is directed against an order dated July 30, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed a writ-application filed by the appellants in which they challenged an order dated 26th February, 2009 passed by the Senior Regional Manager (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the HPCL) terminating the dealership of the writ-petitioner No. 1 which is a partnership firm of which the writ-petitioner No. 2 is a partner.
(2.) Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioners have come up with the present mandamus-appeal.
(3.) The facts giving rise to filing of the writ-application may be summed up thus: (a) On August 27, 2008, an inspection was conducted at the petrol pump run by the writ-petitioners at Purba Bishnupur in the District of 24-Parganas (South). Samples were drawn and sent to the laboratory for testing. By a letter dated 10th November, 2008, the test-report was conveyed to the writ- petitioners which indicated that the ingredient RON in the motor spirit BS III was found to be 83.6 whereas the minimum requirement was 91. (b) On the above basis, by a letter dated 10th November, 2008, the sales and supplies from the aforesaid retail outlet was suspended and the writ- petitioners were asked to offer their explanation. By a letter dated November 19, 2008, the writ-petitioners replied the said letter by insisting on re-testing of the NOZZLE sample as also TT sample retained at the outlet. (c) By a letter dated 12th January, 2009, the HPCL refused to accede to the prayer of re-testing on the ground that there existed huge gap between the required RON and the actual percentage of RON found on analysis and consequently, they were of the view that it was a clear case of adulteration. (d) By the aforesaid letter, the writ-petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why necessary action should not be taken against them. The writ- petitioners by their letter dated 28th January, 2009 replied reiterating their demand of retesting and the HPCL by the letter dated 26th February, 2009 terminated the dealership which was the subject-matter of challenge.;