- (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 2.
(2.) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.12.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the contesting respondent was allowed and the termination of the dealership vide order dated 17.03.2010 was quashed.
(3.) The writ petitioner had initially approached this Court by filing writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 618 of 2008 inter-alia for directing the authorities to sign Form II and/or DTO Licence Form claiming that it is running the retail outlet at Nimiaghat of the Corporation selling motor spirit and high speed diesel since 1963. The writ petitioner approached this Court with a grievance that its Licensing Order of 1995 were due to expire on 31.12.2007 and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was not taking any decision on the writ petitioner's application for continuance of the dealership in its favour. During pendency of the writ petition, the order of termination of its dealership was passed on 17.3.2010 by the Corporation which was challenged by way of Interlocutory Application. The writ petitioner confined its prayer to quashing of the said order of termination before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties found that the Corporation had not granted due opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and on the date i.e. on 27.4.2009 when the writ petition itself was listed for hearing, the Corporation refused to give further adjournment and subsequently terminated the dealership of the petitioner. Learned Single Judge found that it was the Corporation's own case that they had chosen to give at least three opportunities of hearing and they were conscious of the fact that on 27.4.2009 the writ petition was to be heard and they were also respondents in the said writ petition. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge found that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order of termination of dealership was quashed by giving the respondent-Corporation a liberty to proceed against the writ petitioner in accordance with the procedure established by law.;