JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition arises out of an order dated 20.06.2007 passed by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation cancelling the retail petroleum agency of the petitioner on several grounds. The writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench on 30th January, 2008 against which the Indian Oil Corporation went up in appeal before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7140 of 2008. The appeal was allowed on 31st August, 2017 and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for decision afresh by the following order:- "The High Court has not looked into the allegations in the case regarding tampering with seal of the totaliser of the dispensing unit for making illegal gains at the cost of unsuspecting members of public mentioned in the order of termination, which fact is also borne out by the stock variation detected at Retail Outlet in all the four products. The violation of the terms and conditions of the Dealership Agreement and other allegations have also not been looked into. What is the penalty prescribed for when the seal is found broken has not been looked into before holding penalty to be disproportionate. Sending an information to weight and measure authority also does not inspire confidence. The High Court should have looked into all these facts in proper prospective. There has to be a proper explanation to show cause notice. What is reply to show cause notice has not been looked into by the High Court. We set aside the order and request the High Court to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. No final comment on merits of the case has been made by us. The appeal is allowed and the case is remitted back to the High Court for deciding the case afresh. Status-quo existing as on today regarding running of the petrol pump shall be maintained. No costs." 2. We have heard Sri. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Sri. Saurabh Basu and Sri. Prakash Padia for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and from a perusal of the record we find that the Sales Officer of the Corporation conducted an inspection on 16th November, 2006 and submitted a report, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. Prakash Padia for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and from a perusal of the record we find that the Sales Officer of the Corporation conducted an inspection on 16th November, 2006 and submitted a report, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. On the strength of the said report, a show-cause notice was issued on the same day to the petitioner, copy whereof is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted a reply to the same which is Annexure No. 5 and is dated 21st November, 2006. On a perusal of the said explanation, the impugned order dated 20th June, 2007 was passed whereby the Corporation took a decision to cancel the retail outlet dealership of the petitioner. It is the said impugned order which has been made subject matter of challenge in which the previous proceedings as indicated above have concluded after remittance from the Supreme Court. 3. Sri. Rakesh Pandey has advanced his submissions on behalf of the petitioner contending that the reply of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration on all the issues raised. He however submits that the show cause notice nowhere charges the petitioner of any tampering of the totaliser seal which is stated to have been broken. The argument is that merely because the seal was broken, a presumption cannot be drawn that the petitioner had tampered with it and to this effect an explanation given by the petitioner has not been appropriately dealt with in the impugned order. The next argument of the learned counsel is that the samples that were drawn of the petroleum products nowhere indicates any adulteration. In the absence of any such charge of adulteration, the imposition of extreme penalty of the termination of dealership is erroneous. The third argument is that the stock variations indicated in the show cause notice were duly explained by the petitioner by raising a clear contention that there was a long delay in inspection by the officials of the company that was never conducted timely as required under the marketing discipline guidelines, and therefore any default on account of the Sales Officer could not have been made the basis for arriving at a conclusion adverse to the petitioner. 4. Another argument advanced by Sri. 4. Another argument advanced by Sri. Pandey is that the petitioner had given a clear indication that the measurements carried out at the time of inspection were not in accordance with the own guidelines of the Corporation which require that different sets of instruments are to be utilized for the purpose of gauging the contents of a cylindrical tank as opposed to that a quadrangular tank. The respondents have therefore adopted a method which is contrary to the said guidelines, and have therefore arrived at a wrong calculation of variation in the stocks available. 5. The last argument raised by Sri. Pandey is to the effect that the extreme penalty of termination of the agency is absolutely disproportionate keeping in view the goodwill of the petitioner's company which had been the running the petroleum outlet for more than four decades. In such circumstances, taking a hyper technical view of the matter without there being any loss having been caused either to the Corporation or to its reputation, the termination of the agency is unjustified. 6. Controverting the said arguments Sri. Padia, learned counsel for the respondent-Oil Corporation submits that the mere breakage of the totaliser seal is itself an indication of tampering that attracts the extreme penalty of termination as per the marketing discipline guidelines. He further submits that the variation in the stocks have not been explained nor could it have been denied by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the inspection was carried out by an appropriate method which does not suffer from any infirmity. It is further submitted that no information was tendered about the alleged tilting of the tank which is a mere excuse taken by the petitioner to somehow the other escape his liability. It is further submitted that the punitive action taken is absolutely proportionate to the provisions made in the marketing discipline guidelines and there being no concession provided for the same, the company cannot deviate therefrom. It is further submitted that the petitioner had full opportunity to explain his conduct and having considered his objections, the company has arrived at a correct conclusion. Consequently no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having considered the same, it would be appropriate to bring on record the provisions on which there is no dispute pertaining to tampering of the seal of the totaliser. Consequently no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having considered the same, it would be appropriate to bring on record the provisions on which there is no dispute pertaining to tampering of the seal of the totaliser. Clause 6.1.4 of the marketing guidelines is extracted hereinunder:- "6.1.4 TOTALISER SEALS FOUND TAMPERED WITH If intended tampering of the Totaliser seals are established leading to manipulation of Totaliser reading, with Weights & Measure seals intact, Penal action as given in Appendix-1 to be taken." 8. A perusal of the same would leave no room for doubt that if there is an indication of tampering of the seals and established further leading to manipulation of totaliser reading it is only then that the penalty as provided in appendix one has to be meted out. The penalty provided in Appendix-1 is termination of agency which is extracted hereinunder:- 3 Totaliser seals found tampered with penal action as applicable for weights and measures seals tampered Termination (irrespective of delivery being short/correct/excess) - - 9. From the facts on record what we find is that the petitioner gave an explanation to the effect that due to inadvertence and accidentally the seal had been broken. Secondly, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner nowhere calls upon the petitioner to give an explanation about any intended tampering. Thirdly, there is no conclusion drawn on the said basis that the petitioner intended to tamper the totaliser seal and manipulated the totaliser reading. We do not find any conclusion or findings that the totaliser reading had been manipulated by such intended tampering. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner No. 1 tampered the totaliser seal does not appear to have been established. Consequently, the order impugned on this count cannot be sustained. 10. The cause of suspicion of making illegal gains at the cost of the members of the public is unfounded, inasmuch as, neither the charge of adulteration exists or has been proved, nor is there any charge of short delivery. Thus in the absence of any tampering established against the petitioner and any other factor as discussed hereinabove, the same cannot be construed to be a direct conclusion to suspect anything about short delivery or adulteration out of stock variation. 11. Thus in the absence of any tampering established against the petitioner and any other factor as discussed hereinabove, the same cannot be construed to be a direct conclusion to suspect anything about short delivery or adulteration out of stock variation. 11. The reply of the petitioner is in detail entailing the possibilities in stock variation. Learned counsel has also submitted that the manner in which the measurements were taken and the status of the tank also adds to the same. On this count, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, nothing substantial could be shown to establish that the measurements were carried out with such tools that were not to be utilized at all. Secondly, the submission of the underground tank having tilted, is only an allegation without any material to support the same. It is only a speculation on the part of the petitioner that the tank may have tilted. Neither any complaint about the actual tilting of the tank or otherwise before the impugned action was made. In the absence of any such evidence, such an argument can neither be accepted nor does it deserve any further examination. 12. Coming to the main issue of stock variation, we clearly find that the allegation is that the variations are beyond permissible limits. Learned counsel tried to over come this hurdle by suggesting that had periodic inspection being carried out then the benefit of permissible limits of variation, as were then existing, would have been made available to the petitioner. This argument is speculative as the petitioner does not appear to have made any complaint about inspection not being made timely prior to the impugned action. The petitioner was also comfortable with no inspection having been carried out quarterly as required under the guidelines. Thus, this argument of seeking benefit of permissible limits of variations cannot be of any advantage to the petitioner. A cumulative effect of any possible variation in the stocks in the past cannot be a ground to give an explanation about the excess or shortage of stocks as on the date of the inspection. There is no material to establish as to why the stock variations did exist as pointed out in the inspection report or even in the impugned order. There is no material to establish as to why the stock variations did exist as pointed out in the inspection report or even in the impugned order. The explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause, therefore was rightly not found satisfactory by the Corporation on this score. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that under the terms of the agreement also, the penalty cannot be reduced. We have perused the schedule pertaining to the penalty on stock variations and we find that the only penalty provided is termination of the agency. The variation in the stocks therefore having not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner, we are satisfied that the conclusion drawn by the corporation is correct. 14. Thus on an over all conspectus of the entire matter, we find that the ultimate conclusion of the Corporation to terminate the agency of the petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed.