ORDER :- The petitioner was appointed as a dealer to vend petroleum products by the respondent-company. It established a retail outlet at Darmavaram, of Prathipadu Mandal, East-Godavari District, in the year 2004. Three products, viz., Motor Spirit (MS), High Speed Diesel (HSD), and Turbojet are dealt with by the petitioner. 2. On 26.4.2006, the outlet was inspected by a vigilance team of the respondent-company. It is stated that there was no stock of MS and Turbojet and only HSD was being sold. The examination of the samples on the spot is said to have revealed that though the HSD met with the standard specifications, the sample of MS did not accord with them. Three samples of the products were drawn. One sample, kept in a sealed container was left with the petitioner. 3. The respondent got the samples of MS taken by it, tested at its Terminal Laboratory. According to a report dated 2.5.2006, issued by the laboratory, the sample did not accord with the specifications of density, and final boiling point of MS. Based on this report, a show-cause notice dated 2.6.2006 was issued to the petitioner, directing him to explain, as to why the contract be not terminated. 4. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 5.7.2006, denying the allegations. It made a request to the respondent to send the sample left with it, for analysis by the same laboratory. The request of the petitioner was acceded to, and the said sample was sent for analysis by the Terminal Laboratory. A report dated 1.8.2006, issued by the laboratory disclosed that the sample accorded with the standard specifications. After receiving a copy of this report, the petitioner submitted further explanation, on 12.9.2006, and made a request to the company, to resume the supplies, that were stopped. However, through the proceedings dated 2.11.2006, the respondent terminated the dealership of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 5. The petitioner contends that the very purpose of leaving a sample with a dealer, whenever inspection is conducted, is to ensure transparency in the process. It is pleaded that when the sample left with it, was found to be in accordance with the specifications, the very basis for initiation of proceedings against it, disappeared, and that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and capricious. 6. The respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It is pleaded that when the sample left with it, was found to be in accordance with the specifications, the very basis for initiation of proceedings against it, disappeared, and that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and capricious. 6. The respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. The technical particulars of the samples, that were drawn and the findings thereon, are furnished. It is stated that the findings on the analysis of the sample, left with the petitioner, are at total variance with those, in relation to the two samples, that were analyzed at different points of time. The respondent suggests that the variation may be on account of passage of time, and the same does not wipe away the serious allegation of adulteration of the product, against the petitioner. 7. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent cannot be sustained in law. He contends that the respondent does not have the right to deny or ignore the findings of the laboratory, which was recognized by it, simply because the findings have gone against it. According to the learned Counsel, there existed underlying policy, and the object behind leaving the sample with the dealer, the very object is sought to be defeated, by the respondent. 8. Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent reserves to itself, the right to terminate the dealership, in case any irregularity is found. He contends that the findings on the two samples, that were retained by the officials of the respondent, were almost identical, except for small variation, whereas the findings on the sample left with the petitioner, are substantially different. He submits that the action taken by the respondent is purely in the interest of the consumers, and the object of the respondent is only to supply pure and unadulterated product to the consumers. 9. The petitioner is the dealer in three products, viz., MS, HSD and Turbojet, supplied by the respondent. Inspection was caused on 26.4.2006. The sample of HSD, that was tested on the spot, did not reveal any variation, as to standards. It appears, Turbojet was not in supply. So far as the MS is concerned, while the petitioner states that it was almost in a dead storage, the respondent proceeded as though, the supply was on, and samples were drawn. The sample of HSD, that was tested on the spot, did not reveal any variation, as to standards. It appears, Turbojet was not in supply. So far as the MS is concerned, while the petitioner states that it was almost in a dead storage, the respondent proceeded as though, the supply was on, and samples were drawn. This Court cannot embark into an inquiry or discussion as to whether the product was at the level of dead storage or in supply. Inasmuch as the samples were drawn and they were subjected to test, that question virtually becomes redundant. 10. The spot test of the samples did reveal substantial variations on two aspects, viz., boiling point and density. As required under the prescribed procedure, three samples were drawn and sealed. One was left with the petitioner, and two were taken by the officials of the company. At the instance of the respondent, the sample of MS, taken by it, was analysed by the Visakhapatnam Terminal Laboratory. The boiling point of the product was found to be 223 Deg.C., and density -6.9. These are said to be at substantial variation from the standard specifications. A show-cause notice was issued on 2.6.2006. 11. The petitioner, even while denying the allegation made against it, requested that the sample left with it, be sent for analysis. In fairness to the petitioner, the respondent acceded to the request and the sample left with the petitioner was sent for test by the same laboratory. It appears that the respondent has also sent the second sample, available with it, for analysis. The laboratory gave a report dated 1.8.2006. The analysis of the sample, that was left with the petitioner revealed that it accords with the standard specifications, viz., boiling point at 175 Deg.C., and density -0.4. This naturally belied the allegation against the petitioner. 12. Further explanation was submitted by the petitioner, to drop the action against it. However, the respondent passed orders dated 2.11.2006, terminating the dealership. 13. The respondent did take note of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, on the basis of the report of the laboratory. The manner in which the contention of the petitioner was dealt with, is reflected in the following paragraphs: "Thereafter, you have requested for testing of the retention sample vide your letter dated 5.7.2006. 13. The respondent did take note of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, on the basis of the report of the laboratory. The manner in which the contention of the petitioner was dealt with, is reflected in the following paragraphs: "Thereafter, you have requested for testing of the retention sample vide your letter dated 5.7.2006. We have permitted testing of the retention sample duly witnessed by you and accordingly, the retention samples left with you and that in our office have been collected and tested in our Visakhapatnam Terminal Laboratory on 1.8.2006. While the retention sample retained in our office failed in Final Boiling Point by recording 225 Deg.C and density variation of -8.2, the retention sample collected from you recorded Final Boiling Point at 175 Deg C and density variation of -0.4. It is important to mention her that the Final Boiling Point was originally recorded at 223 Deg C and the density variation was -6.9 when it was tested on 26.4.2006. In view of wide variation of the test results (Final Boiling Point and Density Variation) i.e., in the test results dated 26.4.2006 and those dated 1.8.2006, we came to the conclusion that you do not merit any consideration and the benefit of doubt cannot be given to you. In this regard, we have also considered your letter dated 12.9.2006 wherein you have requested to supply MS and Turbojet by referring to the laboratory test result dated 1.8.2006. Although we have considered your letter dated 12.9.2006, for the reasons stated above, it has been decided to terminate the Dealership Agreement. In the facts and circumstances, we have no other option but to terminate the Dealership Agreement dated 22.7.2004 as provided for under Clause Nos.55(A), 55(1) and 55(K) of the said Dealership Agreement. As such, the Dealership Agreement dated 22.7.2004 stands terminated forthwith." 14. Hardly any reason was forthcoming, as to why the petitioner be denied the benefit of the result of the sample, left with it. It is not, as if any allegations were made against the petitioner, that the sample was tampered with, or that the laboratory did not conduct the test properly. The very purpose of leaving a sealed sample with a dealer, whenever inspection is conducted, is to ensure fairness and transparency in the entire process. Such a practice is in vogue in several departments of the Government. The very purpose of leaving a sealed sample with a dealer, whenever inspection is conducted, is to ensure fairness and transparency in the entire process. Such a practice is in vogue in several departments of the Government. The basis underlying this practice is to ensure that, in the event of any allegation being made against the dealer, he would have an opportunity to make a request for analysis of the sample left with him. If the same result ensues, on the analysis of the sample left with the dealer, virtually no explanation would be available to him, since the sample was drawn very much in the presence of himself or his representative. On the other hand, if the result of the analysis of the sample does not indicate traces of adulteration of the product, the agency or the department must equally respect the outcome. In case the agency or the department is permitted to have the last word, even if the sample left with the dealer with seal, in tact, is found to be unadultered, not only the purpose of an otherwise fair exercise would stand defeated, but also a totally unfair situation would come into existence. 15. The relevant portion of the order passed by the respondent has already been extracted in the preceding paragraphs. Virtually, no reason is stated as to why the result of the analysis of the sample left with the petitioner, must be ignored. 16. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent shall be under obligation to restore the dealership of the petitioner forthwith. 17. There shall be no order as to costs.