JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—We have dismissed this writ petition on 22nd April, 1993 and now we are supplying reasons for the same. 2. Petitioner, who is a wholesale dealer of Kerosene Oil/Light Diesel Oil in Hamirpur, has filed this writ petition to challenge letter dated 1st December, 1992 (Annexure P-3) issued to him by Chief Divisional Manager of first respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter called Bharat Petroleum), whereby his supplies of kerosene oil were suspended till further orders as per Marketing Discipline Guidelines and the Kerosene/Light Diesel Oil Dealership Agreement. As stated in this letter, it was done on the advice of Director, Food and Supplies, Himachal Pradesh that a case had been registered against the petitioner for mal-practices. The simple case made out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that he is in business since 1985 and has not committed any act of malpractices as alleged against him, therefore, the suspension of his supplies is against the principles of natural justice. 3. In reply to notice to show cause why rule nisi be not issued, the first three respondents have filed reply on the affidavit of Manmohan Singh presently working as Chief Divisional Manager in Bharat Petroleum and fourth respondent State of Himachal Pradesh has filed reply on the affidavit of Prem Dhiman who is at present Director, Food and Supplies, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder(s) to the reply-affidavit(s) of the respondents. From the pleadings of the parties, the admitted facts are as follows i— 4. The petitioner was appointed dealer of kerosene oil/light diesel oil in December, 1987 by Bharat Petroleum. As per the dealership agreement (Annexure R-l), Bharat Petroleum has been selling kerosene oil to the petitioner for resale within the area of Hamirpur. As per clause 24 of the agreement, the petitioner has, inter alia agreed that he and his servants and agents will observe and comply with the provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and all rules and regulations made there under and all other Government or Municipal or other Acts, laws, regulations and bye-laws as may be in force from time to time. Further he had confirmed that he was aware of the rules mentioned in clause 24 (b) of the agreement, failure to comply with which would render him solely responsible for all consequences. Further he had confirmed that he was aware of the rules mentioned in clause 24 (b) of the agreement, failure to comply with which would render him solely responsible for all consequences. Two of the rules, which are relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the godown of the petitioner must conform to the requirements of the Petroleum Rules, 1937 or any other rules or enactment in force for the time being in that behalf and no work of any kind in connection with the depot and/or godown is to be carried on before sunrise or after sunset. It may be pointed out that in the present petition we are not concerned with either suspension or termination of dealership agreement for which no action has been taken by the respondents as of today. 5. The petitioner has also been given licence (Annexure P-4) under the Petroleum Rules for import and store of 15 kilo leters petroleum Class B in bulk at place Dugha, District Hamirpur. Since kerosene oil is an essential commodity, its distribution is controlled by the Director, Civil Supplies, Himachal Pradesh and it is only sold by those wholesalers and fair price shop holders who are authorised to do so under Clause 4 of the H P. Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1979. Under this provision on 5-9-1989 the petitioner was appoint ed wholesaler of kerosene oil at Dugha, District Hamirpur on the conditions given in the authorization letter. It was provided that if the whole saler contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the authorisation or any direction issued to him, his authorisation will be cancelled or suspended by order in writing of the authority who has issued the authorisation and the whole or any part of the security deposited by him will also be forefeited after giving him reasonable opportunity. 6. From the record before us, we find that the complaints against the petitioner started as far back as in September, 1991. On 9th September, 1991 he was given notice to show cause by the District Food and Supplies Controller, Hamirpur, stating number of incidents of not supplying kerosene oil in accordance with the route chart and supplying kerosene oil to the fair price shops arbitrarily, resulting in scarcity of kerosene oil in the area. On 9th September, 1991 he was given notice to show cause by the District Food and Supplies Controller, Hamirpur, stating number of incidents of not supplying kerosene oil in accordance with the route chart and supplying kerosene oil to the fair price shops arbitrarily, resulting in scarcity of kerosene oil in the area. Further, by another notice to show cause dated lst October, 1991 another mal-practice of selling kerosene oil at the higher price than the fixed price, by referring to the numbers and dates of the bills by which it was sold by him, was served upon the petitioner. When the reply filed by the petitioner to notice to show cause dated 9th September, 1991 was not found satisfactory and further reply called for this notice and other notice dated 1st October, 1991 was not received, the District Food and Supplies Controller, Hamirpur proceeded to pass order dated 3rd December, 1991 forefeiting the security of Rs. 2,000 (Annexure P-19). 7. There are other letters dated 26th September, 1991 (Annexures R-4/1A and R-4/JC), dated 25th November, 1991 and 2nd December, 1991 addressed to the petitioner, wherein the District Food and Supplies Controller, Hamirpur had pointed out number of irregularities/malpractices committed by the petitioner. One of the irregularities, which seems to be very serious, was that the petitioner being agent of Life Insurance Corporation, was putting pressure on the retail dealers to get themselves insured through him to give them supply of Kerosene Oil. When the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur received complaints of such malpractices resulting in scarcity of kerosene oil in the district, he on 17th December, 199! wrote (Annexure R-4/2) to Senior Divisional Manager of respondent No. 1 Corporation to cancel the dealership agreement of the petitioner and appoint another dealer. Copies of this letter were also sent to other authorities including Director, Food and Supplies, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, who vide his letter No. FD SHF (6) 10/78-Part-12/33502 dated 24th December, 1991 recommended to the Senior Divisional Manager of respondent No 1 Corporation to take action against the petitioner as desired by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur. Along with his letter the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur had sent copies of notices to show cause dated 9th September, 1991 and 1st October, 1991 ; letters dated 25th November, 1991 and 2nd December, 1991 ; Order dated 3rd December, 1991 forefeiting the security of Rs. Along with his letter the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur had sent copies of notices to show cause dated 9th September, 1991 and 1st October, 1991 ; letters dated 25th November, 1991 and 2nd December, 1991 ; Order dated 3rd December, 1991 forefeiting the security of Rs. 2,000 and statements of different retail dealers that the petitioner had pressurised them to get themselves insured through him to supply them their quota of kerosene oil. 8 Not only this, the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur himself, while he was on tour on 2nd February, 1992, found the petitioner distributing kerosene oil at 6.00 p.m. at a place Bijfari in violation of the conditions of dealership agreement as well as of authorisation and he ordered detailed inquiry (Annexure R-4/3) in the matter. In the inquiry, notice to show cause dated 4th March, 1992 (Annexure R-4/4) was given to the petitioner by the District Food and Supplies Controller, Hamirpur, to which the petitioner replied on 12th March, 1992 (Annexure P-20) In respect of the complaint of sale of kerosene oil on the higher price than fixed by the authorities prima facie case was found against the petitioner under sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by the Department and the Inspector of Food and Supplies, Barsar, District Hamirpur lodged FIR No. 51/92 (Annexure R-4/5) in Police Station Barsar against the petitioner on 28th August, 1992. The challan has also been put up in the Court on 7th January, 1993. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner by his letter dated Nth October, 1992 (Annexure R-4/6) informed the District Food and Supply Controller that while filling the Kerosene Oil Tanker at storage point Dugha, 7550 litres of Kerosene Oil had spilled over due to negligence of the driver and the conductor. But when, to verify these facts, the inquiry was held, the petitioner did not turn up and co-operate with the inquiry. This coupled with the balance sheet for the month of October, 1992, submitted by the petitioner, wherein no quantity of Kerosene Oil was shown stored at storage point Dugha, led the authorities to conclude that the petitioner had sold this large quantity of kerosene oil in black market and FIR (Annexure R-4/9) was lodged at Police Station, Hamirpur on 12th November, 1992, which is under investigation. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Kuldip Singh has urged that despite all this material on record which made the Director, Food and Supplies, Himachal Pradesh to recommend stoppage of supply of kerosene oil to the petitioner, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were required to give notice to show cause to the petitioner before acting on the recommendations and actually stopping the supply. According to Mr. Kuldip Singh, stopping the supply of kerosene oil to the petitioner may be administrative decision but it had civil con sequences, therefore, it must conform to the principles of natural justice as well as principles of fairness, reasonableness, justice and equity as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, Mr Kuldip Singh has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others, (1990) 2 SCC 146, Union of India and others v. E. G> Nambudiri, (i991) 3 SCC 38 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600. 11. It cannot be denied that principles laid down in the above stated authorities is the law of the land, but the Supreme Court has also held in R. S. Dass v. Union of India and others, 1986 (Supp) SCC 617 that i— (Para 25 at page 635) " rules of natural justice are not rigid rules, they are flexible and their application depends upon the setting and the background of statutory provision, nature of the right which may be affected and the consequences which may entail, its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. These principles do not apply to all cases and situations. Applications of these uncodified rules are often excluded by express provision or by implication ,." 12. For holding this their Lordships of Supreme Court had relied upon earlier judgment in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, (1985)3 SCC 398, wherein the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court has considered the scope and extent of applicability of principles of natural justice to administrative actions. For holding this their Lordships of Supreme Court had relied upon earlier judgment in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, (1985)3 SCC 398, wherein the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court has considered the scope and extent of applicability of principles of natural justice to administrative actions. His Lordship Madon, J, summarised the position of law on this point as under ;— (Para 101 at page 479) “.....So far as the audi alteram partem rule is concerned, both in England and in India, it is well established that where a right to a prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before an order is passed would obstruct the taking of prompt action, such a right can be excluded. This right can also be excluded where the nature of the action to be taken, its object and purpose and the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions warrant its exclusion; nor can the audi alteram partem rule be invoked if importing it would have the effect of paralyzing the administrative process or where the need for promptitude or the urgency of taking action so demands, as pointed out in Maneka Gandhi case at page 681. If legislation and the necessities of a situation can exclude the principles of natural justice including the audi alteram partem rule, a fortiori or can a provision of the Constitution has a far greater and all-pervading sanctity than a statutory provision .,..." 13. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited cases, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case notice to show cause was not required to be served upon the petitioner before suspending the supply of kerosene oil to him. In fact, as stated in the impugned letter dated 1st December, 1992 (Annexure P-3), the supply of kerosene oil to the petitioner was suspended "till further advice", which shows that this decision was not final and was made for the time being only. Neither the dealership agreement of the petitioner with Bharat Petroleum has been suspended or terminated nor his authorisation to be wholesale dealer of kerosene oil at Dugha, District Hamirpur has been either suspended or cancelled. Neither the dealership agreement of the petitioner with Bharat Petroleum has been suspended or terminated nor his authorisation to be wholesale dealer of kerosene oil at Dugha, District Hamirpur has been either suspended or cancelled. Moreover, even the impugned decision of suspension of supply of kerosene oil to the petitioner was taken on the recommendations of Director, Civil Supplies, Himachal Pradesh, who was compelled to make such recommendations only after complaints were received by him from the District Authorities that the petitioner since September, 1991 had been continuously indulging in malpractices of selling kerosene oil at higher price than the fixed price ; not distributing kerosene oil to the retail dealers in accordance with the route chart ; selling kerosene oil in black market ; violating the conditions of dealership agreement and authorisation letter etc. etc, for which notices to show cause were also given to him and orders forefeiting the security were passed twice and two FIRs were registered against him. As a result of complaints of malpractices committed by the petitioner, there was already scarcity of kerosene oil in the area in which he was operating as wholesale dealer and had further notice to show cause been given, the respondents would not have been able to take prompt action against the petitioner and make alternative arrangement of fair distribution of kerosene oil, which was required in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Therefore, in our opinion the impugned decision (Annexure P-3) to suspend the supply of the kerosene oil to the petitioner, is not bad if no notice to show cause was served upon the petitioner before taking it, 15. For these reasons the writ petition failed and it was dismissed on 22nd April, 1993. Writ Petition dismissed