Judgment 1. Heard the counsel tor the petitioner and the counsel appearing for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 2. Initially this application was filed by the petitioner, who is running the retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for quashing the order, dated 19.1.2007, whereby respondent no. 3 has stopped supply of petrol power as well as diesel to the petitioner. The licence of the petitioner was suspended by the respondents. During the pendency of this writ application the dealership licence of the petitioner was terminated, as such, LA. No. 1537 of 2007 has been filed making prayer for additional relief, i.e., for quashing the order, dated 22.2.2007, terminating the dealership of the petitioner by the respondent, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The petitioner is a widow and she is running the retail outlet. Her case is that at her outlet there is only one dispensing unit for power petrol and two separate dispensing units of high speed diesel. An inspection was conducted at the retail outlet of the petitioner on 13.8.2006 and no discripancy in stock and no adulteration was found in different tests conducted by authorities within parameters of Marketing Discipline Guideline, 2005. However, on 5.9.2006 petitioner received a letter sent by respondent no. 2 intimating that in the laboratory test report sample produced by the petitioners retail outlet failed on the parameters of Multi Functional Additives (M.F.A.). Show cause notice was issued which was duly replied by the petitioner, Petitioner represented for granting retesting sample in terms of Clause 25(d) of the Marketing Discipline Guideline, 2005. The sample was taken but its report was not supplied to the petitioner. Her prayer for restoration of supply is also not being considered. Petitioners case is that the report contained in Annexure "4A", which has been made basis for termination of her dealership licence is not the report of the sample which was taken from the retail outlet of the petitioner. The reason, for such submission is that all samples which were taken from the retail outlet of the petitioner on 13.8.2006 has serial number starting from 2300. For example test lab reports starting from 23114, 23117, 23118 has been shown. So far the sample number of Annexure "4A" is concerned, it is 23740 and date is same, i.e., 13.8.2006. This is totally a different serial number and it is not possible that on same date different serial number will start. For example test lab reports starting from 23114, 23117, 23118 has been shown. So far the sample number of Annexure "4A" is concerned, it is 23740 and date is same, i.e., 13.8.2006. This is totally a different serial number and it is not possible that on same date different serial number will start. There is possibility that some other samples taken from the some other retail outlet has been taken into account and on that basis termination order has been passed. 3. These are questions of facts which can be decided by the respondent Corporation. Since the matter relates to termination of dealership licence, petitioner must be given an opportunity to place all these facts before the respondents for reconsideration. However, it is essential that before the case of the petitioner is reconsidered, the impugned order, dated 22.2.2007, whereby the dealership has been terminated must be quashed. The impugned order, dated 22.2.2007, terminating the dealership of petitioner by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is quashed. 4. This application is allowed. 5. The respondents should start supply of the petroleum product to the retail outlet of the petitioner till the date representation of the petitioner is considered and fresh order is passed. Respondent no. 2, the General Manager of the Corporation will reconsider the representation of the petitioner, in case the petitioner files his representation within four weeks from today. Respondent no. 2 will pass order within two months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner.