Judgment 1. All the three appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19.4.1994. passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12040 of 1992 by the learned single judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by respondent on. 1 has been allowed and the orders impugned dated 3.6.1992 and 21.10.1992, contained in Annexures 4 and 5 respectively therein, have been quashed. As such, the said appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. While admitting L.P.A. No. 77 of 1994 on 20.9.1994 this Court directed that meanwhile, the Corporation respondent, who was appellant in L.P.A. No. 77 of 1994, will be at liberty to see that the petrol pump in question functions on temporary basis subject to the result of the appeal. 3. In the writ petition the writ petitioner assailed the validity of the aforementioned orders, contained in Annexures 4 and 5, passed by the District Transport Officer and the Appellate Authority respectively. By the order dated 3.6.1992, the licence granted to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Bihar Motor Spirit & High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers Licensing Order (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order) was cancelled and the same was affirmed by order dated 21.10.1992 passed by the appellate authority on appeal preferred by him. 4. In short, the relevant facts are that the present dispute relates to a Petrol Pump situated at Saheed Road, P.S. Kotwali in the town and district of Gaya for which originally dealership was granted to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 by the Corporation. A licence to deal with petrol and diesel was also granted under the Licensing Order in the name and style "M/s. Jain Petrol Supply Company". On expiry of the licence, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 filed an application for renewal for the year 1991-92. On 7.2.1992, the Petrol Pump was inspected and on inspection by the Executive Magistrate, Gaya along with the Supply Inspector and the Deputy Controller, Weights and Measures, 1033 litres of petrol and 304 litres of diesel were found short. Accordingly, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was directed to close the sale of petrol and diesel and subsequently F.I.R. was also lodged against the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pursuant to which a criminal case is still pending against him. 5. Accordingly, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was directed to close the sale of petrol and diesel and subsequently F.I.R. was also lodged against the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pursuant to which a criminal case is still pending against him. 5. On the basis of the said inspection a show cause notice was also served on the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 by the District Transport Officer asking him as to why his licence be not cancelled on the grounds of shortage found in the stock of petrol and diesel. It is alleged that the Manager had fled away with the stock register, sale register and cash memos. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 filed his show cause denying the charges and, further, stating that the allegations against him were made on the basis of suspicion and surmises. The District Transport Officer, vide his order dated 31.3.1991, cancelled the licence of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 on finding the show cause not satisfactory. The validity of this order was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 3298 of 1992 in which, vide order dated 29.4.1992, the cancellation order was quashed with a liberty to the licensing authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. Thereafter the licensing authority issued another show cause notice to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 in which besides the aforementioned facts it is also alleged that the two machines installed-one for petrol and other for diesel-were found defective and not working and that the said shortage was because of sale by him in black-market. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 submitted his show cause denying the charges. The District Transport Officer on consideration of the said show cause of the writ petitioner respondent No. 1 declined to renew the licence and cancelled his licence granted earlier, vide order dated 3.6.1992 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) as he was not satisfied with the show cause and he held that the licensee had violated the conditions of the licence for his personal gain. He also found that there was adulteration for which, in any case, there could not be any facility available under any rules. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 thereafter preferred appeal before the Transport Commissioner which was dismissed, vide order dated 21.10.1992 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). He also found that there was adulteration for which, in any case, there could not be any facility available under any rules. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 thereafter preferred appeal before the Transport Commissioner which was dismissed, vide order dated 21.10.1992 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). Both the said orders, (Annexures 4 and 5 ) were challenged by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 in the writ petition as being arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power. 7. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition, vide judgment and order dated 19th April, 1994, which has been impugned in the present appeals preferred by the appellant-dealer granted temporary licence under the Licensing Order and dealership to run the petrol pump in question and the Corporation, besides the State of Bihar, The Corporation was added as respondent No. 5 after the dealership agreement of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was terminated by them. The learned single Judge while quashing the impugned orders held that the termination of the dealership agreement with the writ petitioner by the Corporation and the grant of temporary licence in favour of the appellant in L.P.A. No. 70 of 1994 was only because of cancellation of licence of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 under the Licensing Order and consequently held that the licence of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 would automatically revive and he would be entitled to carry on business of petrol and diesel in accordance with the dealership agreement. 8. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge, has completely misdirected himself in allowing the writ petition inasmuch as, according to him, the second show cause is also based on same inspection report, on the basis of which the first show cause was issued on two grounds, namely, shortage in the stock and non-production of registers which were quashed by this Court. it has, thus, been erroneously held that obvious conclusion is that all the grounds were non-existent and are imaginary since they did not form part of the inspection report, on the basis of which the earlier two grounds were founded against the petitioner. it has, thus, been erroneously held that obvious conclusion is that all the grounds were non-existent and are imaginary since they did not form part of the inspection report, on the basis of which the earlier two grounds were founded against the petitioner. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error in holding that the Executive Magistrate was not authorised to make inspection of the premises under Clause 12 of the Licensing Order which vitiated the inspection itself and, thus, the order impugned suffered from infirmity. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment/order passed by. the learned Single Judge inasmuch as, according to him, learned single Judge has considered the facts, in detail, and on consideration of the same held that the order of cancellation of the writ petitioners licence was arbitrary and illegal. According to him, even assuming that the learned Single judge has committed error in holding that the Executive Magistrate was not authorised to make inspection of the premises under Clause 12 of the Licensing Order which vitiated the inspection itself would not render the judgment under appeal bad in law as the learned Single Judge has also disposed of the appeal on consideration of the materials, in detail. 10. We are unable to accept the submissions aforementioned made by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. Under Clause 12 of the Licensing Order, the Magistrate has also been vested with the powers of entry, inspection, search, seizure etc. besides other authorities mentioned therein. The said Clause 12 of the Licensing Order runs as follows: 12. Powers of entry, inspection, search, seizure, etc.-- (1) The State Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Additional State Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Deputy State Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Special Officer, incharge Tyre Rationing, Transport Department, Bihar, Deputy Transport Commissioner of the Division, Assistant Transport Commissioner of the Division, District Transport Officer, District Magistrate, Subdivisional Magistrate, Superintendent of Police Deputy Superintendent of Police, other Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government, viz. with such assistance as he may think fit- (a) require the owner, occupier or any other person incharge of any place, premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this order or of conditions of any licence issued thereunder has been, is being, or is about to be committed, to produce any books of accounts or other documents, showing transaction relating to such contraventions; (b) enter, inspect or break open and search any place or premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this Order or of the conditions of any licence issued thereunder has been, is being or is about to be committed; (c) take or cause to be taken, extracts from or copies of any documents, showing transaction relating to such contraventions which are produced before him; (d) search, seize and remove stocks of motor spirit or high speed diesel oil with containers and the animals, vehicles or other conveyance used in carrying the said motor spirit or high speed diesel oil in contravention of the provisions of this Order, or of the conditions of the licence issued there-under and thereafter, take or authorise the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of stocks of Vanaspati and animals, vehicles or vessels or other conveyances so seized before a Magistrate and for their safe custody pending such production. (2) The provisions of Secs. 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898) relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to searches and seizure made and to the articles or things seized under this clause. Further, under Sub-clause (2),the provisions of Secs. 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 relating to search and seizure have also been made applicable for search and seizure made under the said clause. 11 Thus, from the pLaln reading of the said provision, there cannot be any doubt that the Executive Magistrate and the authority to make the inspection of the premises and his inspection report cannot be held to be vitiated on account to lack of power in him. 11 Thus, from the pLaln reading of the said provision, there cannot be any doubt that the Executive Magistrate and the authority to make the inspection of the premises and his inspection report cannot be held to be vitiated on account to lack of power in him. Under Clause 12 of the Licensing Order, besides other officers mentioned therein, the Magistrate has also been vested with the powers to enter, inspect or break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this Order or of the conditions of any licence issued thereunder has been, is being or is about to be committed. Thus, in our opinion, it was rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned single Judge has committed error in holding that the Executive Magistrate was not authorised to make inspection of the premises under Clause 12 of the Licensing Order and that vitiated the inspection itself. 12. There appears to be no basis to uphold the finding of the learned Single Judge that all the grounds were non-existent and are imaginary. It is also not correct to say that they did not form part of the inspection report, on the basis of which the earlier two grounds were founded against the petitioner. 13. In paragraph 4 of impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has himself noticed that on the basis of the inspection, a show cause notice was served on the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 inter alia, asking him to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled on the ground of he shortage found in the stock of petrol and diesel and, further, that the Manager had fled away with the stock register, sale register and cash memos. In paragraph 5 it is mentioned that in the second show cause issued after the order of this Court dated 29.4.1992 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3298 of 1992 giving liberty to the licensing authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, various grounds were mentioned therein and in reply to which the petitioner-respondent No. 1 submitted his show cause. In paragraph 5 it is mentioned that in the second show cause issued after the order of this Court dated 29.4.1992 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3298 of 1992 giving liberty to the licensing authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, various grounds were mentioned therein and in reply to which the petitioner-respondent No. 1 submitted his show cause. Respondent No. 1 did not take any objection in the said reply that all the grounds were non-existent and are imaginary since they did not form part of the inspection report on the basis of which the two grounds were founded against him. The copy of the inspection report was not brought on the record of the writ case. 14. Further, we find it difficult to uphold the finding of the learned Single Judge that the allegation relating to adulteration found in the petrol was added for the first time in the show cause without there being anything in the prosecution/inspection report. The learned single Judge was not correct in drawing inference that the District Transport Officer initiated the proceeding for cancellation of the licence of respondent No. 1 on non est grounds not substantiated by any cogent evidence merely because the shortage in the stock of petrol and diesel was found on measurement of the stock by a dip rod method. In our opinion, the dip rod method applied for measurement of the stock cannot vitiate the order impugned in the instant case in view of the quantity of shortage in the petrol and diesel found by the authority. The shortage of 1033 litres of petrol and 304 litres of diesel is not a small quantity, in which case variation detected by applying dip rod method may not be said to be very accurate method or giving an approximate idea of the stock and not the actual availability in the stock, as has been held by the learned Single Judge. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that there was any other method prescribed under the rules/regulations/circulars for measurement of the stock. 15. We are unable to accept the finding of the learned Single Judge that there is any vagueness in the second show cause notice about violation of conditions No. (1) and (2) mentioned therein. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that there was any other method prescribed under the rules/regulations/circulars for measurement of the stock. 15. We are unable to accept the finding of the learned Single Judge that there is any vagueness in the second show cause notice about violation of conditions No. (1) and (2) mentioned therein. Condition No. (1) of the licence is that "the licensee shall comply with all the provisions of this Order and (2) that the licensee shall display his licence predominantly at his place of business". In the second show cause issued on 15.5.1992 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), it is true that in the first ground it is alleged that the licensee violated conditions No. 1 and 2 of the licence, but this is followed by the details as to how conditions No. 1 and 2 have been violated. 16. Mr Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 77 of 1994 submitted that the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that the appellant terminated the dealership agreement only because the licence of the petitioner had been cancelled. It was submitted by him that for more than two years the dealer did not effect any sale of any product, thereby not only the business interest of the Company has been jeopardised but even its image took a beating in the area. It was also alleged that respondent No. 1 did not take care of the property of the Company and the general upkeep was so badly affected that it would have taken a good amount of investment to get the property and the retail outlet in working condition. In this regard, respondent No. 1 was repeatedly reminded but when the appellant did not see any positive response, they came to a conclusion that it was no longer possible to keep them to run the retail outlet in question. It was submitted by him that driven by its business compulsions and its effort to redeem the damage and the market, the Company decided to terminate the dealership and appoint a new dealer immediately to run the show on behalf of the Company. Mr. Tripathi submitted that the termination of the dealership was not passed because of the termination of the licence by the authorities, but for the reasons aforementioned. Mr. Tripathi submitted that the termination of the dealership was not passed because of the termination of the licence by the authorities, but for the reasons aforementioned. It was further submitted by him that though respondent No. 1 brought the above face of termination of his dealership on record by an amendment petition and added the appellant as respondent No. 5 but no amendment was sought for in the prayer portion nor any relief was sought for by him against the termination of the dealership, yet the learned Single Judge while delivering the judgment has erroneously set aside the order of termination of dealership passed by the appellant. According to him, the order of termination of dealership was a fresh cause of action for respondent No. 1 which was rightly not challenged in the present writ petition and no prayer or relief was sought against the appellant which could be granted by the learned Single Judge. He also submitted that the termination of dealership was rightly not questioned in the writ petition since the same falls in the realms of private contract between the Company and its agent, i.e., the dealer and the same is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. 17. We find no force in the submission of Mr Tripathi that the validity of the cancellation of the dealership could not have been challenged in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant-Company is a Government of India Undertaking discharging public duties and is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such, it is difficult to accept the bold contention of Mr. Tripathi that the termination of the dealership cannot be questioned in a writ application since the same falls in the realms of private contract between the Company and its agent. It is true that normally writ Courts refrain from interfering with the contractual matters for which the appropriate remedy is by way of arbitration and/or regular suit. However, in the instant, case, since it is not disputed that respondent No. 1 did not pray for quashing of the dealership, learned single Judge, in our opinion, was not justified in dealing with that aspect of the matter without going into the details of the contentions raised by the appellants. 18. However, in the instant, case, since it is not disputed that respondent No. 1 did not pray for quashing of the dealership, learned single Judge, in our opinion, was not justified in dealing with that aspect of the matter without going into the details of the contentions raised by the appellants. 18. In the result, all the three appeals succeed, the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.