Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Kalidas Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.4.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 10920 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ petitioner was allowed and the order passed by the authorities was set aside. 3. From the facts available on record, it appears that the retail outlet of the writ petitioner was raided on complaints made about adulteration in diesel. Samples were collected as required under the rules of the Indo Burma Petroleum Company Limited (in short IBP Company), which, subsequently were produced for chemical analysis before a registered laboratory at Kolkata wherefrom it was reported that the samples were found tampered from inner side of the container and, therefore, the samples collected were not found to be the samples taken from the outlet of the concerned petrol pump. The Indian Oil Corporation, however, on the basis of this report suspended the sales/supplies of all products of the writ petitioners retail outlet and subsequently, cancelled the dealership licence so granted to the writ petitioner giving rise to the order impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the writ petitioner himself was responsible for tampering with the samples which were kept with it and, therefore, they accepted the complaints about adulteration of the petroleum products sold from his outlet and accordingly the order of cancellation of dealership licence of the writ petitioner about the sale and supply of the petroleum products was passed. 5. Learned Single Judge of this court, on appreciation of facts and pleadings of the parties, held that there was no material before the IBP Company to fasten the liability upon the writ petitioner regarding tampering with the inner part of the container nor there was any material before the court to record a finding that samples were tampered at the outlet of the writ petitioner itself. 6. It appears from the materials on record and the report of the chemical analyst that the retail outlet samples kept with the writ petitioner were not found tampered nor any complaint wets made by the officials of the respondent-Company regarding tampering of the inner part of the container at the behest of the retail outlet dealer. 6. It appears from the materials on record and the report of the chemical analyst that the retail outlet samples kept with the writ petitioner were not found tampered nor any complaint wets made by the officials of the respondent-Company regarding tampering of the inner part of the container at the behest of the retail outlet dealer. In absence of these materials the court could not have come to a conclusion saying that the charges levelled by the respondent-Company was valid and supported by the cogent materials. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, even at this stage, could not produce any material before us to hold a contrary view rather he reiterated that the samples kept with the retail dealer was not found tampered from outside though it was detected in the laboratory that the tampering was found on the inner part of the container. This fact remained unsupported by any other material produced by the IBP Company. 8. In the background aforesaid, therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Court was wholly justified in allowing the writ application. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we find no merit in this appeal. 10. It is accordingly dismissed.