JUDGMENT : D.N.Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26th March, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2012, whereby the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and the order dated 10th September, 2013 of termination of the Indane distributorship Agreement dated 22nd March, 2012 for distribution of Liquefied Petroleum Gas was held as a valid one and hence the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX An advertisement was issued in the year 2010 under the 'Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitarak Yojana' for the Indane distributorship of Liquefied Petroleum Gas for several places in the State of Jharkhand including Kuru, District Lohardaga for Open category. This advertisement is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. An application was preferred by this appellant in proper format (Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) in which it has been categorically stated by this appellant that the location of the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Liquid Petroleum Gas Vitaran is at Kuru. It has also been stated by this appellant in the said application that the location of the land for the LPG Godown is at Village Rajrom, P.S. Kuru, District Lohardaga. Even survey number was given and map was also attached. Aforesaid information was furnished in column No. 9 of the said application at Annexure 2. Thus, neither there was any misrepresentation by this appellant about the location of the land for the LPG Godown nor any fraud was played by this appellant. The facts stated in the application (Annexure 2) made by this appellant was duly verified by the Respondent No.2- Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Format of the Field Verification Report is at Annexure 5 to the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal. Looking to the Clause 9 of the said format at Annexure 5, it appears that physical verification of the land for the godown was to be done by the officers of the Respondent No.2, Indian Oil Corporation Limited and in case the land was not found suitable then it could have been changed by the applicant so as to make him eligible for the distributorship. It appears that the Indian Oil Corporation, on field verification, never found the land for the godown unsuitable because had there been any suggestion by the Indian Oil Corporation for any other location of the land for the godown, this appellant would have changed the location of the Godown, but, even after verification never such objection was raised by the Respondent No. 2-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thereafter, distributorship was granted to this appellant on 22nd March, 2012. This appellant continued with the LPG Distributorship and later on, after show cause dated 31st October, 2012 was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, it was terminated on 10th September, 2013 vide order at Annexure 6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that the reply to the show-cause is not satisfactory and the godown ought to have been situated at Village Kuru, whereas the godown of this appellant is at village-Rajrom in the Block-Kuru, District Lohardaga and it has also been stated in the termination order that there is a violation of Clause No. 27(i) of the agreement dated 22nd March, 2012. Initially against the show-cause dated 31st October, 2012, W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2012 was preferred and later on order of termination dated 10th September, 2013 was also challenged by this appellant in the same Writ Petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2012 vide I.A. No. 7335 of 2012 and as the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26th March, 2015, original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent appeal. 3. ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY THE APPELLANT (ORIGINAL PETITIONER) Counsel for the appellant-original petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the public advertisement for the distributorship of L.P.G. Gas (Indane)(Annexue 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) this appellant preferred an application in the format prescribed by the Respondent No.2-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The said application form is at Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and neither there is suppression of any material fact nor any misrepresentation or any wrong statement of fact in the said application. The address of the godown for LPG Distribution is mentioned as village Rajrom, Police Station Kuru, District Lohardaga in Clause 9 of the said application form. The address of the godown for LPG Distribution is mentioned as village Rajrom, Police Station Kuru, District Lohardaga in Clause 9 of the said application form. These facts were also verified by the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as per Format of the Field Verification (Annexure 5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) and never any objection was raised about the location of the land of the godown. As per Clause 9 of the Format of Field Verification, had there been any objection raised by the Indian Oil Corporation about suitability of the site for the godown, then an opportunity would have been given to this appellant to change the location of the godown. In the present case, the godown is situated within the Block Kuru where distribution of Liquefied Petroleum Gas under 'Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Liquid Petroleum Gas Vitaran' is to be made. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that Kuru is both Village and Block in the district Lohardaga. As per the advertisement in question, the location of the godown for the distributorship of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas should be at Kuru and hence the godown situated at village Rajrom, a village situated within the local limits of Police Station-Kuru, does not fall short of the requirements of the advertisement in question (Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(C) No.7084 of 2012 vide order dated 26th March, 2015. It is further submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) that this appellant has never made any false statement in his application. There is also no misrepresentation on the part of the appellant in the said application. It is further submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) that this appellant has never made any false statement in his application. There is also no misrepresentation on the part of the appellant in the said application. No fraud has been played by this appellant upon the Respondent No. 2-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Moreover, the facts stated in the application were also verified by the high ranking officers of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as per the Format for Field Verification, which is Annexure 5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and as per Clause 9 of this Format for Field Verification, if the site or the land of the Godown is not suitable, an opportunity ought to have been given to this appellant to change the location of the godown, meaning thereby the location of the godown can be changed by the applicant upon objection raised by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. In fact, physical verification was made of the godown of this appellant, but, no objection was raised by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and thereafter, the L.P.G. distributorship was granted on 22nd March, 2012 and thereafter, Notice was issued and ultimately the distributorship agreement was terminated on 10th September, 2013 only on the ground that the land for the godown was not situated within village Kuru. In fact, the Godown is situated within the local limits of Police Station Kuru, but, in Village-Rajrom, which is absolutely adjacent to village Kuru and this fact was highlighted in the application of the applicant which was verified by the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and they surely have not found anything much objectionable, otherwise, a chance would certainly have been given to the appellant to change the place or location of the godown as per Clause 9 of the Format for Field Verification. This aspect of the matter was not appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence judgment and order dated 26th March, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7084 of 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside. This aspect of the matter was not appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence judgment and order dated 26th March, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7084 of 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in the Show-cause Notice dated 31st October, 2012 served upon the applicant (appellant herein), which is at Annexure 9 to the supplementary affidavit filed by this appellant, it has never been stated that distributorship will be terminated on the ground of breach of Clause No. 27(i) of the Agreement dated 22th March, 2012, whereas, in the termination order of the distributorship it has been recorded that this appellant has committed a breach of Clause No. 27(i) of the agreement dated 22nd March, 2012, which refers to the consequences of giving unauthorised connections by the Distributors. Thus, the termination order dated 10th September, 2013 (Annexure 6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) is traveling beyond the show-cause Notice dated 31st October, 2012 (Annexure 9 to the supplementary affidavit). This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that if there is violation of any clause of the agreement, it is Clause No. 27(l). This presumption is without any admission. However, even looking to the said Clause, i.e. Clause No. 27(l) of the agreement dated 22nd March, 2012, it appears that no show-cause Notice has ever been given for the alleged breach of Clause No.27(l). Moreover, there has been no violation of the said Clause No. 27(l) even, because Clause No.27 (l) of the agreement dated 22nd March, 2012 permits the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to terminate the distributorship in case any untrue or incorrect fact is being supplied by this applicant, but again, as stated hereinabove, as per the application form, which is at Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, no incorrect or misleading information have been supplied to the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. about the location of the land for the godown. On the contrary, these facts were verified by the high ranking administrative officers of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in terms of the Format of Field Verification (Annexure 5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), especially Clause no. On the contrary, these facts were verified by the high ranking administrative officers of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in terms of the Format of Field Verification (Annexure 5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), especially Clause no. 9 thereof and no objection has ever been raised by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. about the location of the land for the godown, otherwise Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. would have given an opportunity to this appellant for change of the location of the godown. In fact, if the location of the godown can be changed as per clause 9 of the Format for Field Verification, it is suggestive of the fact that location of the godown is not Sine qua non for a particular place otherwise the application of this appellant would have been rejected on the very same ground. On the contrary, even after Field Verification no objection was ever raised and distributorship was granted on 22nd March, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even today if an opportunity is given to change the location of the godown, this appellant is ready with a new site for the godown as per the specification of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., but, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has terminated the distributorship agreement without giving any opportunity to this appellant for change of the location of godown. Moreover, the order of termination is travelling beyond the show-cause Notice. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and hence, the judgment and order dated 26th March, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel appearing for the appellant has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in W.P.(C) No. 28633 of 2013 which was allowed vide order dated 9th July, 2013, copy whereof has also been given to the counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. As per this decision rendered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the showroom was to be situated within location as Auraiya. Here, Auraiya is also a district. Here, Auraiya is also a district. Insistence was made by the Indian Oil corporation Ltd. that the show-room ought to have been within the local limits of Auraiya, whereas Hon'ble the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has held that Auraiya is also a district and hence there is no violation even outside the Municipal limits of Auraiya. This judgment of the Allahabad High Court was challenged by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 35206/2013, which was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 2nd December, 2013. The Judgment dated 9th July, 2013 of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court as well as copy of the order dated 2nd December, 2013 passed in a Special Leave Petition, which is tendered by the counsel for the appellant, is taken on record. In the facts of the present case also the location of the land of the godown is insisted in the village Kuru, whereas in the application itself it was mentioned that the location of the land for the godown is at village Rajrom, which is situated within the local limits of P.S. Kuru, Block Kuru, district Lohardaga and as per the Format of Field Verification report at Annexure 5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, especially clause 9 thereof, in case any objection was raised by the Indian Oil Corporation, then opportunity could have been given to the appellant for change of location of the godown and the appellant could have offered another site for the godown. The appellant is ready even today to offer another land for the godown if the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. gives an opportunity as per Clause 9 of the Format prescribed for Field Verification (Annexure 5 to the Memo of the Letters Patent Appeal). Counsel appearing for the appellant has also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4815 of 2016 (Md. Zamil Ahmed Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), which is dated 5th May, 2016 and with reference to paragraph 22 of the said decision, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that on the basis of the aforesaid decision, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot take advantage of its own mistake. If objection was raised as per Clause 9 of Format for Field Verification (Annexure 5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), this appellant would have changed the place of godown. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order dated 26th March, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 2. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that this appellant has no other land for the godown in the village Kuru, District Lohardaga where Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Indane) is to be distributed under 'Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitarak Yojana'. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has relied upon Clause 3(chh) of the advertisement in question, which is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. As per this clause, the location of the land of the godown ought to have been in village Kuru, whereas the location of the land of the godown as offered by this appellant is at village Rajrom, P.S. Kuru, District Lohardaga and hence, Clause No. 3(chh) of the advertisement was violated and therefore, Show Cause Notice dated 31st October, 2012 was issued to this appellant and the reply given by this appellant was not satisfactory and hence, distributorship granted was terminated on 10th September, 2013. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition in question. It is further submitted by the counsel for Respondent No.2 that this appellant has mislead the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and has given a false information about the place of the godown. In fact, the godown ought to have been within Village-Kuru, i.e. the place of distribution and with respect to which distributorship was granted. Upon verification, it was found that the place of the godown and place of distribution are different and hence, the distributorship agreement was terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 further submitted that there is breach of condition no. 27(l) of an agreement dated 22nd March, 2012. Upon verification, it was found that the place of the godown and place of distribution are different and hence, the distributorship agreement was terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 further submitted that there is breach of condition no. 27(l) of an agreement dated 22nd March, 2012. Looking to the said Clause 27(l), it appears that if any information given by this appellant in his application for distributorship is found untrue or incorrect with respect to any material particular, the contract can be terminated. This aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by the learned Single judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained. Counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that decision given by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which has been relied upon by the appellant, was in relation to Auraiya which is a town as well as district and therefore, the observation that show room may be situated outside Auraiya municipal area is not applicable in the facts of the present case. This contention is exclusively noted as per submissions made by the counsel for the respondent no.2. REASONS 5. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 26th March, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2012 mainly for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements. (I) Public Advertisement was issued by the Respondent No. 2- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for the distributorship of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Indane) under the 'Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitarak Yojana' in the year 2010 for Village Kuru, Block Kuru, District Lohardaga (Annexure 1 to the Memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). An application was preferred by this appellant for getting Liquefied Petroleum Gas distributorship (Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Looking to the application format (Annexure 2), it appears that it is categorically mentioned by the applicant that he was applying for Liquefied Petroleum Gas distributorship for the location as Kuru, Block Kuru District Lohardaga in 'Open category'. As per Clause 9 of this application form (Annexure 2) he has also revealed categorically the particulars of the location of the land for the Liquified Petroleum Gas Godown as Village-Rajrom, Police Station Kuru, District Lohardaga. As per Clause 9 of this application form (Annexure 2) he has also revealed categorically the particulars of the location of the land for the Liquified Petroleum Gas Godown as Village-Rajrom, Police Station Kuru, District Lohardaga. These facts were verified by the high ranking officers of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as per the Format of Field Verification (Annexure 5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). As per Clause 9 of this format for Field verification, if the land is not found suitable for the godown by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., it will be pointed out to the applicant and then the applicant can change the location of the godown. Never such objection was raised by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (II) Thereafter, distributorship was granted to the appellant and ultimately, an agreement was entered into between this appellant and Indian Oil Corporation on 22nd March, 2012. This agreement is at Annexure 5 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. Thereafter, show cause Notice was given on 31st October, 2012 by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Annexure 9 to the Supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal). In this Show cause Notice objection was now raised by the Indian Oil Corporation that the location of the Godown is at Village-Rajrom, whereas it ought to have been at village Kuru and thereafter, on 10th September, 2013 order of termination of the agreement of distributorship was issued. This termination order is at Annexure 6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. (III) Looking to Clause 9 of the Format for Field Verification (Annexure 5 to the Letters Patent Appeal) if the Indian Oil Corporation did not find the land for the godown suitable, then they should have raised such objection as per the Format for Field Verification at the time of verification and at the time of grant of distributorship in the month of March, 2012. Had any objection been pointed out and option given to this appellant, he could have changed the location of the land of the godown. Had any objection been pointed out and option given to this appellant, he could have changed the location of the land of the godown. (IV) Looking to the various clauses of the agreement which are referred to during the course of argument, for the ready reference Clause 27(i), 27(l) and 28 are quoted as under: “27.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, the Corporation shall also be at liberty at its entire discreation to terminate this agreement forthwith upon or at any time after the happening of any of the following events, namely: (a).................................................................................................... (b)................................................................................................. (c ).................................................................................................. (d).................................................................................................. (e)................................................................................................. (f).................................................................................................... (g)................................................................................................... (h).................................................................................................. (i) Distributer shall give out unauthorised connections to any person without the Corporation's receipt/subscription voucher or otherwise howsoever. (j)..................................................................................................... (k)..................................................................................................... (l) If any information given by the Distributor in his application for appointment as a Distributor shall be found to be untrue or incorrect in any material particular. (m).................................................................................................... (n)..................................................................................................... 28.Without prejudice to the foregoing provision or anything to the contrary herein contained either of the parties hereto, namely, the Corporation or the Distributor, shall, be entitled to terminate this Agreement on giving thirty days notice to the other party without assigning any reason for such termination.” (Emphasis supplied) (V) Looking to the Show Cause Notice dated 31st October, 2012 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation (Annexure 9 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by this appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal), it appears that the violation pointed out by the Respondent No. 2 in this Show Cause is that the location of the land of the godown was at Village-Rajrom, whereas Liquefied Petroleum Gas Distributorship is given with respect to Village-Kuru. However, in the termination letter dated 10th September, 2013, it has been mentioned that the distributorship has been terminated as there is a violation of Clause 27(i) of the agreement dated 22nd March, 2012. It appears that Clause No. 22(i) of the agreement dated 22nd March, 2012 has nothing to do with the show-cause Notice. This reasoning for termination of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas distributorship for violation of Clause 27(i) of the agreement, as stated in the termination order, is travelling beyond the show-cause Notice. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. This reasoning for termination of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas distributorship for violation of Clause 27(i) of the agreement, as stated in the termination order, is travelling beyond the show-cause Notice. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. (VI) It further appears from the facts of the case that as per Clause No. 9 of format for Field verification (Annexure 5 to the Letters Patent Appeal), if the land for godown is not found suitable then option should have been given by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to the applicant of distributorship so that he could offer an alternative place for the godown. It appears that never any objection was raised by the Indian Oil Corporation about the location of the land for godown of this appellant. Moreover, the L.P.G. distributorship is given at Village Kuru as per advertisement at Annexure 1 to this Letters Patent Appeal. The Block is also Kuru. The land for the godown is situated within the local limits of the Police Station Kuru. The land of the godown is also within Block Kuru. Moreover, the L.P.G. distributorship is given at Village Kuru as per advertisement at Annexure 1 to this Letters Patent Appeal. The Block is also Kuru. The land for the godown is situated within the local limits of the Police Station Kuru. The land of the godown is also within Block Kuru. Thus, if according to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. any violation has been committed by this appellant in offering a place for the godown, then opportunity should have been given to this appellant to change the place of godown instead of terminating the distributorship because as per Clause 9 of the format of Field verification (Annexure 5), in case a site for the godown is not found suitable the applicant should be given an opportunity to offer another location for the godown (VII) In a similarly situated case, i.e. Writ-C No. 28633 of 2013 (Smt. Astha Gupta vs. Union of India & others), which was filed as distributorship of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the show room was not within the locality advertised for, i.e. 'Auraiya' meaning thereby, within the limits of the municipality of district Auraiya, it has been held by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, vide order dated 9th July, 2013, that if the locality has been described as 'Auraiya', any land within the district of Auraiya could be offered for appointing the distributor and it could not be confined to the municipal limits of Auraiya and therefore, there is no violation of the conditions imposed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The aforesaid order, i.e. Order dated 9th July, 2013, was challenged by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35206 of 2013, which was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 2nd December, 2013. The facts of the present case also is that the godown is to be located within Kuru as per the advertisement of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Now Kuru is a village as well as a Block. The facts of the present case also is that the godown is to be located within Kuru as per the advertisement of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Now Kuru is a village as well as a Block. In the facts of the present case, godown is situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station-Kuru and never any false information was supplied by this appellant in his application and this fact has also been verified by the high ranking officers of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and never any objection was raised at the time of verification, otherwise applicant of the distributorship ought to have been given an option to change the location of the godown and this appellant would surely have changed it. Instead of termination of the distributorship, if Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. gives an option, this appellant is ready to change the location of the godown even today. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2012. vide order dated 26th March, 2015. (VIII) In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4815 of 2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 11928/2015) (Md. Zamil Ahmed vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), no one can take advantage of his own wrong or mistake. Here, in the facts of the present case, Indian Oil Corporation has verified the place of godown. Never any incorrect information has been given in his application form (Annexure 2 to the Memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) about the place of godown. In fact, no objection was ever raised by the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation about the location of the godown and no offer was there to the applicant for change of the location of the godown. In fact, as per Clause 9 of the Format for Field Verification (Annexure 5 to the Letters Patent Appeal) if an objection was raised with respect to the place of godown ever offer ought to have been made by this appellant for change of the place of godown. Therefore, as is apparent, neither any objection was raised with respect to the location of the godown nor any option was given to this appellant to change the place of godown and straightaway the distributorship was terminated. Therefore, as is apparent, neither any objection was raised with respect to the location of the godown nor any option was given to this appellant to change the place of godown and straightaway the distributorship was terminated. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2012. vide order dated 26th March, 2015 . (IX) We have also perused Clause 28 of the agreement dated 22nd March, 2012. It appears that Clause 28 permits Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to terminate the agreement of distribution unilaterally without any reason. Nothing much has been argued by the counsel for both sides on Clause 28, otherwise, apparently this clause is incorporated due to absolutely unequal bargaining power. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 26th March, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2012 and we, hereby, quash and set aside the termination order of distributorship dated 10th September, 2013 passed by the Indian Oil Corporation (Annexure 6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). 7. As the termination order dated 10th September, 2013 is, hereby, quashed and set aside, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. will supply Liquefied Petroleum Gas to this appellant for the distribution to the public at large. 8. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of. Appeal allowed.