Order Seeking quashing of termination of Dealership Agreement dated 28.02.2013, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was allotted a Retail Outlet Dealership in the year, 2004 on National Highway no. 2 (NH2) and he started the outlet in the name of M/s Sinha Service Station. By letter dated 20.02.2013, the Retail Outlet Dealership awarded to the petitioner has been cancelled, in view of clause 9 to the Dealership Agreement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no notice in terms of Clause 9 has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and therefore, the respondent Indian Oil Corporation would not have terminated the Retail Outlet Dealership only on the basis of the written reply of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Amar Nath Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation refers to clause 69 of the Dealership Agreement and submits that even the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner was required to approach Director (Marketing) of the Indian Oil Corporation in the event of any dispute. It is further submitted that vide various letters starting from 07.04.2008 to 04.08.2012, the petitioner was directed to improve the performance of the retail outlet and though, he gave assurances, he could not improve the performance of the retail outlet and therefore, respondent Indian Oil Corporation was constrained to terminate the Retail Outlet Dealership awarded to the petitioner. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. The letter of termination dated 28.02.2013 indicates that the petitioner was issued as many as eleven letters by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation directing him to improve the performance of retail outlet. The representation of the petitioner that he is keeping ill health and due to death of his wife he could not improve the performance of the retail outlet, has been considered in the termination letter dated 28.02.2013. Clause 9 of the Agreement clearly stipulates minimum quantity which the dealer is required to lift and pay for the said quantity supplied by the Corporation. It further provides that in the event of a dealer not fulfilling the minimum quantity mentioned in clause 9, the Agreement can be terminated. Clause 9 of the Agreement clearly stipulates minimum quantity which the dealer is required to lift and pay for the said quantity supplied by the Corporation. It further provides that in the event of a dealer not fulfilling the minimum quantity mentioned in clause 9, the Agreement can be terminated. It appears that pursuant to notice dated 31.10.2012, the petitioner has submitted his reply which has been considered by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation. 7. Referring to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that before terminating the dealership, the petitioner should have been afforded personal hearing, I am of the opinion that in view of the clear stipulation in the agreement and the specific stand taken by the respondents, there was no requirement in law affording personal hearing to the petitioner. On the ground of any inconvenience or illness of a dealer, the petrol pump i.e. Retail Outlet Dealership cannot be kept inoperative. I find no merit in the matter and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.