- (1.) THE subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 26th February' 2009 passed by the Senior Regional Manager (Retail), hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the HPCL for brevity), terminating dealership of the writ petitioner No. 1 which is a partnership firm of which the writ petitioner No. 2 is a partner. The undisputed facts and circumstances of the case are as follows :-On 27th August 2008 an inspection was conducted at the petrol pump run by the writ petitioner No. 2 amongst others under the name and style of messers Friends HP Station 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 furnished to the writ petitioners which indicated that the ingredient 'ron" in the motor sprit: BS III was found to be 83. 6 whereas the minimum requirement was 91. It is on this basis that by the letter dated 10th November, 2008 sales and supplies from the aforesaid retail outlet was suspended and the writ petitioners were asked to offer their explanation. By a letter dated 19th November 2008 the writ petitioners replied by stating that they had no explanation to offer and insisted upon re-test of the nozzle sample as also the TT sample retained at the outlet. To be specific the contents of the letter dated 19th November 2008, insofar as the same is relevant for our purpose is as follows :- "in view of the above fact there is no word to explain about the failure of MS NOZZLE sample, though the MS density in my Density Register matches with the Challan Density with in variation. I fail to understand how the results of RON Test has failed. The variation of test result of nozzle samples with respect to test result to depo sample is also surprising to me. So, I humbly request you to Re-test the MS Nozzle sample and also the T. T. sample which is sealed and signed by Sales Manager and kept in our outlet so, I will be very grateful to you if you do the necessary steps regarding my application as early as possible. "
(2.) BY a letter dated 12th January 2009 HPCL refused to accede to the prayer for re-testing because of the huge gap between the required minimum of RON and the actual percentage of RON found upon analysis which led them to conclude that it was a clear case of adulteration. The reasons assigned, for refusing the prayer for re-testing, in the letter dated 12th January 2009 to be precise are as follows :- "the gap between Retail outlet Nozzle sample report and Supply location sample/tt sample report is very wide. RON for the supply location sample and TT retention sample is observed as 94. 3 and 94. 4 respectively whereas for retain outlet nozzle sample is 83. 6. Similarly sulphur content in Supply location sample and TT sample is found to be 44 ppm and 39 ppm respectively whereas Retail outlet nozzle sample is found to be 147 ppm. Recovery at 70 deg C for Retail Outlet nozzle sample is only 17% whereas for supply location sample, it is 30% and for TT retention sample, it is 7%. Recovery at 100 deg C also is observed only 47% for Retail outlet nozzle sample whereas it is 57% and 56% respectively for supply location and TT retention sample. Since the gap is very huge, your request vide letter dated 19. 11. 2008 for re-testing cannot be entertained as it is a clear case of adulteration. "
(3.) BY the aforesaid letter the writ petitioners were also called upon to explain as to why necessary action should not be taken against them. The writ petitioners by their letter dated 28th February 2009 replied reiterating their prayer for re-testing. HPCL by a letter dated 26th February 2009 terminated the dealership. It is this order which is under challenge.;