JUDGMENT ( 1. ) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20-7-2009 passed by the respondents terminating the licence agreement executed in favour of the petitioner for retail supply of petroleum products. ( 2. ) Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was granted licence on the basis of an agreement to run a retail outlet since 1962 in the name and style of M/s Singhai Rajaram Tulsiram at Kuthla, District Katni, for selling petroleum products, i.e. Hi-Speed Diesel etc. Initially the retail outlet was established with the help of Burma Shell Corporation and subsequently the same was continued on the strength of licence agreement executed by the respondent No. 1 on 5-6-1980. It is also not disputed that on 17-8-2006 Anti Adulteration Team of respondents had done the inspection of the retail outlet and petrol pump of the petitioner. On the basis of the inspection report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after getting the reply, obtaining the test report, the order was passed on 3-7-2007 terminating the licence agreement of the petitioner. The said order of termination was called in question in Writ Petition No. 8152/2007, which was heard and allowed on 22-10-2008 by this Court. While allowing the writ petition, this Court specifically directed that the termination order of the licence agreement of the petitioner was passed on certain findings relating to performance test but for it neither any test report was submitted nor the guidelines under which such performance test was to be conducted were brought to the notice of the Court. This Court, therefore, granted a liberty to the respondents to reconsider the replies of the petitioner and pass a fresh reasoned speaking order in accordance with law after disclosing the petitioner, the parameters of the performance test, if any, prescribed by the competent authority and the extent to which the sample drawn from the petitioner's premises failed to meet those parameters. Now in this petition it is the contention of the petitioner that since on a approach to this Court, a relief was granted to the petitioner, the respondents became bias against the petitioner. As even after passing the order of quashment of the order of termination of licence agreement, the supply of petroleum products was not restored, the petitioner was required to file Writ Petition No. 419/2009 before this Court. As even after passing the order of quashment of the order of termination of licence agreement, the supply of petroleum products was not restored, the petitioner was required to file Writ Petition No. 419/2009 before this Court. While entertaining this writ petition, this Court specifically directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to run the petrol pump on the terms and conditions on which the licence was granted on 5-6-1980 until further orders. It is the case of the petitioner that since even after passing of such interim order on 23-1-2009 in the aforesaid writ petition nothing was done and on the other hand another order of termination of dealership was issued on 4-2- 2009, the petitioner was required to file a contempt case before this Court. In the said Contempt Case No. 139/2009 an order was passed on 13-7-2009 and since the respondents on their own made a declaration that they will recall the order dated 4-2-2009 and will comply with the interim order passed in the writ petition aforesaid, they were granted an opportunity to take action in accordance to law in terms of the orders issued in earlier Writ Petition No. 8152/2007. It is further stated that soon thereafter when the notice was sent to the authorities of the respondents, the impugned order has been passed on 20-7-2009, antedating it to show that the petitioner is not entitled to continue with the dealership and the very same order of termination of licence agreement of the petitioner is re-enforced. It is contended that nothing has been indicated in the order that the sample drawn from the outlet/petrol pump of the petitioner has failed the performance test on the basis of any norms prescribed by the respondents. Thus, it is contended that mala fidely in arbitrary manner the impugned order has been passed and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. ( 3. ) The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 14303/2011 for taking additional documents on record. This Court on considering the aforesaid I.A., has already allowed the same on 5-1-2012 and has taken the documents on record. ( 3. ) The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 14303/2011 for taking additional documents on record. This Court on considering the aforesaid I.A., has already allowed the same on 5-1-2012 and has taken the documents on record. Referring those documents learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the test reports of the sample obtained from the petrol pump of the petitioner and has categorically stated that if these documents are taken into account, it cannot be said that the performance test report of the sample drawn from the outlet of petitioner was given on the first occasion on the basis of any test conducted. Drawing attention of this Court to the affidavit of the officer of the respondents, filed on record of this Court on 14-11-2011, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that only this much is said in this affidavit that the tests were conducted on the basis of a sample drawn on 17-8-2006 from the petitioner's retail outlet and whatever reports were obtained thereafter, were the basis of making averments in the affidavit in paragraph 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no whisper of any such test conducted on the basis of sample obtained from the premises of the petitioner in the reports except the word that there was violation of performance test. THE facts which have been mentioned in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of the deponent Shri Ravi Sahay, the officer of the respondents, do not find place in the reports and, therefore, it is contended that such facts were mentioned without there being any test report. It is contended that if test reports (Annexure P-10 and P-11) are looked into, nothing as has been mentioned in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of the said officer, could be corroborated from these documents. ( 4. ) For this purpose, contents of paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Shri Ravi Sahay are reproduced below : "That in current case the calcium content was found as 17 ppm in SL and T/L, but in the case of Retail Outlet it was NIL(O) which indicated a clear failure as the value is below 10 ppm. Even the repeat sample also was found to be below 10 ppm level (i.e. 2.8 ppm). Even the repeat sample also was found to be below 10 ppm level (i.e. 2.8 ppm). Accordingly it was shown as failing in performance test." If test reports (Annexures P-10 and P-11) are seen and examined, it is found that there is nothing said in these two reports about the performance test. Even in first report (Annexure P-10) it has been categorically said that as represented by retail outlet (RO), sample fails to meet performance test. Since the rest of the parameters meets the requirement of HSD(BS II) requirements, hence can be sold as HSD (BS II) only. The second report dated 18-3-2008 though do not contain this later part of the eligibility of selling of the HSD but only this much is said in the remark that product as represented by Retail Outlet (RO) Dealers' Retention sample fails to meet the requirements of Hi-Speed Diesel (BS II) with respect to Performance Test. Again nothing is said as to what were the parameters of the performance test and what were the shortfalls on account of which it was said that the sample fails the performance test. This particular aspect was already examined by this Court on an earlier occasion when the writ petition was filed against the first order of catenation of lease agreement. In many words this particular aspect was looked into by this Court and the findings were already given. Thus, at least it was necessary to indicate, what were the parameters of the performance test and how the petitioner's sample failed the said test. Without there being any such explanation, on an affidavit only which was filed in this Court in this petition, such a fact was not required to be disclosed. It is pointed out by the petitioner that only in the order of termination of licence agreement, impugned in this writ petition, these facts have been mentioned and even show cause notice was not given to the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have complied with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner and as such the order impugned is not sustainable. It is further contended that since the petitioner was not granted permission to run the petrol pump, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 419/2009 and in the said writ petition, the interim order was issued. It is further contended that since the petitioner was not granted permission to run the petrol pump, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 419/2009 and in the said writ petition, the interim order was issued. When this order was brought to the notice of the respondents, immediately they issued another order on 4-2-2009 (Annexure P-3). When contempt action was initiated against the respondents then only they have withdrawn the order dated 4-2-2009 and instead of restoring the supply of petroleum products, they issued the impugned order, which is liable to be quashed. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, the respondents have filed a return. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has taken this Court to the various documents and has contended that in the impugned order these facts were categorically mentioned that there was failure of performance test. In paragraph 10 of the order passed by the respondents, it was categorically said that in case of Hi-speed and diesel, the performance test includes verification of calcium content using Shell method, testing rusting property of fuel by ASTM D 665 and detection of additive using specified reagent developed in ouse by the lab and the fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the sample drawn has failed in performance test upon testing for these parameters. Thus, it is contended that there was sufficient compliance of the order of this Court passed in earlier writ petition and, therefore, it could not be said that the order passed by the respondents was not just or proper. As far as the issuance of order dated 4-2- 2009 is concerned, it was explained that opportunities were extended to the petitioner and since the petitioner did not appear personally or through authorized person, earlier replies of the petitioner were taken into consideration and the order was passed. However, by inadvertent mistake, the order quashed by this Court was re-enforced and that being so, a statement was made before this Court that the order dated 4-2-2009 would be withdrawn and fresh order would be passed. However, by inadvertent mistake, the order quashed by this Court was re-enforced and that being so, a statement was made before this Court that the order dated 4-2-2009 would be withdrawn and fresh order would be passed. It is reiterated by the respondents that since the petitioner was granted opportunity to appear in person or though an authorized person, and since authorized person of the petitioner did not appear, only a relative of the petitioner came in the office of the respondents without carrying any authority in writing from the petitioner, it was considered that the petitioner has nothing to say in the matter and earlier replies of the petitioner were considered and orders were passed afresh. That being so, it is contended that there was no violation of the orders of this Court nor there was any mala fide intention. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has been granted licence of three outlets within the same district and out of three, two are still running. Nothing has been done against the petitioner on account of any prejudice, bias or mala fide as other two outlets of the petitioner, running on the licence of the respondents, are not closed nor any action is initiated in that respect. Thus, it is contended that the claim made by the petitioner is baseless and since only on one count earlier writ petition was allowed and the said parameter is now disclosed, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 5. ) Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. ( 6. ) It is really surprising that the respondents have now come with such a plea that the performance test earlier conducted on the basis of the sample obtained by the respondents from the outlet of the petitioner has failed and, therefore, the licence agreement of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled. The very same test was conducted on earlier occasion. IT was well within the knowledge of the respondents that on all other counts the sample obtained from the outlet of the petitioner has successfully passed the test. This particular aspect was the main concern of this Court when the Writ Petition No. 8152/2007 was being considered. The very same test was conducted on earlier occasion. IT was well within the knowledge of the respondents that on all other counts the sample obtained from the outlet of the petitioner has successfully passed the test. This particular aspect was the main concern of this Court when the Writ Petition No. 8152/2007 was being considered. If these were the circumstances, the same could have been brought to the notice of the Court at that time and even an explanation of the petitioner would have been asked for during pendency of that petition, which has remained pending for a period of more than a year. The petition was filed on 2-7-2007 and it was decided on 22-10-2008. There is nothing on record to indicate that any other report about the performance test report was obtained separately on the basis of which it was said that the sample obtained from the outlet of the petitioner failed the performance test. In the earlier two reports not a single word was said about the parameters of the performance test or failure of the performance test on account of not fulfilling those parameters. By subsequent order, if something which could have been brought to the notice of this Court, is being tried to be inserted in the order of cancellation of licence agreement, the same cannot be accepted. IT is not the case of the respondents that subsequently any test was performed on the basis of which the sample obtained from the outlet of the petitioner was not found up to the mark on account of which the licence agreement of the petitioner was required to be cancelled. There is nothing on record and not even a whisper in the return of the respondents that any parameters of performance test were brought to the notice of the petitioner by giving him a show cause and after obtaining any reply from the petitioner in respect of those parameters and the test reports, fresh order of termination is passed. The technical objections have only been raised by the respondents in their return. The technical objections have only been raised by the respondents in their return. IT is not the case of the respondents that after passing of the order dated 13-7-2009 in Contempt Case No. 139/2009, any notice was given to the petitioner pointing out the parameters of performance test, the results obtained by the respondents on any such test and an opportunity to the petitioner was given to show cause as to why the licence agreement of the petitioner be not cancelled. This being so, the stand which is taken by the respondents cannot be accepted. One more fact which the petitioner has pointed out by producing the documents is that the respondents on their own have made the application before the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive, Bhopal for renewal of the storage licence specifically including the storage of the petitioner also at Kuthla. If the licence agreement of the petitioner was cancelled, the respondent Corporation was not required to seek renewal of the storage licence from the said authority. On the other hand the respondents-authorities could have brought to the notice of the competent authority the fact relating to cancellation of the licence of the petitioner and would have taken back the products stored in the retail outlet of the petitioner. This shows that there was no intention of the respondents to entirely close the chapter of granting continuity of licence agreement of the petitioner. In view of this also, it is clear that the respondents have not acted fairly and properly in the matter of passing of orders of termination of licence agreement of the petitioner. ( 7. ) For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20-7-2009 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the petroleum supply to the petitioner forthwith. ( 8. ) In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove but with no order as to cost. Petition allowed.