JUDGMENT & ORDER : RAJEEV MISRA, J. 1. Heard Sri. Sashi Nandan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. P Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants and Mr. Prakash Padia representing all the respondents. 2. The petitioner-appellant No. 1 M/s. Dhirpur Multi Center is the retail outlet dealership of which the petitioner-appellant No. 2 is the proprietor. The retail outlet dealership allotted to the petitioner-appellants was terminated by means of an order, dated 20. 12. 2007 passed by the respondent No. 1 the General Manager Indian Oil Corporation. A perusal of the order dated 20. 12. 2007 will go to show that the dealership allotted to the petitioner-appellants has been terminated on the following grounds as contained in the aforesaid order, dated 20. 12. 2007 i.e. the Weight and Measurement Seals of one of the DUs-HSD (of Avery make) was observed to be broken. The totalliser Weights and Measurement Seals of one of the DU-MS (of MIDCO make) and HSD (of Avery make) the sealing wire passed through holes in such a way that totaliser could be manipulated without breaking the seals. One HSD-DU was connected to tanks (20 ki & 15 ki) with help of two valves on top of the tanks. TT retention samples of MS & HSD were not available at RO. Feeling aggrieved by the termination order, dated 20. 12. 2007, the petitioner-appellant preferred an appeal in terms of Chapter 6 of Marketing Discipline Guidelines. The appeal preferred by the petitioner-appellants also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the respondent No. 3 the Executive Director (Retail Sales) IOC, Bombay vide order, dated 21. 7. 2009. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner-appellants filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50711 of 2009 before this Court. The same has been dismissed by the learned single Judge by means of the judgment and order, dated 21. 09. 2011. Challenging the judgment and order dated 21. 09. 2011 passed by the learned single Judge, the petitioner-appellants have now come up in special appeal. 4. The present special appeal was heard at length on 13. 11. 2017. The Bench hearing the special appeal after noticing the submissions made by Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellants passed a detailed order formulating the issues involved in this special appeal. For ready reference the order dated 13. 11. 2017 is extracted herein below:- "Heard Sri. 11. 2017. The Bench hearing the special appeal after noticing the submissions made by Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellants passed a detailed order formulating the issues involved in this special appeal. For ready reference the order dated 13. 11. 2017 is extracted herein below:- "Heard Sri. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Sri. Prakash Padia, for the respondent/company. The challenge raised in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 21st September, 2011 whereby the learned single Judge has upheld the orders passed by the competent authority terminating the petroleum dealership of the appellant that was also affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. Sri. Shashi Nandan, while advancing the submissions on behalf of the appellant has urged that the order of termination of the dealership as well as the appellate order both suffer from fundamental infirmities that has been overlooked by the learned single Judge, hence the impugned order and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. He has urged that there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as prior to the action terminating the dealership on the alleged ground of tampering of the same, the precondition of serving a show-cause notice has not been observed. He submits that the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal has observed that a notice had been issued on 9th October, 2007 but no reply was given by the appellant. This finding has been assailed contending firstly, that before the learned single Judge it was a specific case of the appellant that no such notice was ever served, and even otherwise if such a notice had been dispatched, then the same does not find mention in the impugned order of termination dated 28th December, 2007. It is therefore, contended that had there been a notice as contemplated under the guidelines, then in that event the completion of such a precondition would have been mentioned in the impugned order of termination, and therefore its absence clearly establishes that as a matter of fact no such notice was ever served on the appellant. The next contention is that an inspection was carried out on 24th May, 2007 on the basis whereof the termination has been brought about and this inspection was not carried out by a team consisting of Group C officers. The next contention is that an inspection was carried out on 24th May, 2007 on the basis whereof the termination has been brought about and this inspection was not carried out by a team consisting of Group C officers. This issue had been clearly raised before the learned single Judge which has not been answered and even otherwise the answer given by the appellate authority in the impugned order dated 21st July, 2009 does not satisfy the said requirement. It is contended that even though the appellant may not have given the list of officers of Group C yet the burden lay on the respondents to establish that the officials who have carried out the inspection were of Group C. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents also did not indicate this except for saying that the inspection was carried out by the officials authorised to do so. He then submits that against the finding on tampering reference was made to the notice that was issued on 12th June, 2007 after the inspection. The appellant had submitted a reply on 21st June, 2007 annexing therewith a report by the officials of the Weights and Measures Department dated 19th June, 2007 which clearly indicated an absence of any tampering of the sales. This report has been rejected by the authorities including the appellate authority treating it to be an afterthought for which there is no basis. He contends that the officials of the Weights and Measures Department are Government officials, and experts of the department and therefore, such a report could not have been ignored by casting it aside on the ground that such a report was obtained after 25 days of the inspection having been carried out by the company. Thus, this was relevant for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of the allegation of tampering and the same having been totally excluded on irrelevant considerations, the termination order as well as the appellate order are vitiated. Thus, this was relevant for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of the allegation of tampering and the same having been totally excluded on irrelevant considerations, the termination order as well as the appellate order are vitiated. It is further submitted that the guidelines cannot in any way be presumed to have excluded the consideration of any such material in the shape of an inspection by the Weights and Measures Department and in the absence of any such exclusion of consideration of such material, the recital in the orders to the effect that the same is an afterthought is based on surmises and conjectures and any avoidance by the authorities vitiates the decision making process. Learned counsel has then invited the attention of the Court to some additional findings recorded by the appellate authority namely that the appellant had admitted the status of tampering and had also signed the inspection report. On this he contends that firstly there is no such admission at all and secondly the alleged signatures that have been obtained are not of the dealer or his manager but by some employee which cannot be said to establish an admission on the part of the appellant. He therefore, submits that certain more considerations have been taken for non-suiting the appellant while passing the order, dated 21st July, 2009 and therefore, the appellate order also suffers from such infirmities. Supplementing his submissions he contends that the ground of appeal that has been placed on record also indicates that such grounds pertaining to the merits of the objections raised by the appellant, even though specifically stated, have not been taken into consideration including the specific pointing out of the relevant guidelines that require observance of the procedure prescribed for inspection as also the procedure prescribed for passing of a termination order of dealership. The appellate authority therefore, fell in error in proceeding to dismiss the appeal. Ultimately, he submits that the learned single Judge has not adverted to these aspects of the matter and therefore, the impugned judgment is vitiated. Sri. Prakash Padia, in order to advance his submissions and all the issues raised prays that he may be permitted to further seek instructions as per the records available in order to advance his reply to the submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant. Sri. Prakash Padia, in order to advance his submissions and all the issues raised prays that he may be permitted to further seek instructions as per the records available in order to advance his reply to the submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant. On the request of learned counsel let the matter come up on 4th December, 2017. " 5. Today when the matter was taken up, we pointed out to the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Prakash Padia to address the Court on the issues which have been framed vide order dated 13.11.2017 and which alone call for determination in the present appeal. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents at length, we find that only two important issues relating to procedure required to be adjudicated upon in the present special appeal at this stage. Issue No. 1 Whether the inspection held on 24.5.2007 which is the basis of the termination order passed against the petitioner-appellants was conducted by Group-C Officers as required under the provisions of Clause 5.1 (2) of the Industrial Guidelines for Sample Collection and Testing. Issue No. 2 Whether the second show-cause notice dated 09.10.2007 which was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner-appellant in response to the earlier show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner-appellants. 7. On the pointed query of the Court, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Prakash Padia has fairly admitted before us that the inspection which was carried out on 24.05.2007 was conducted by a team of three officers of which only one officer was of Group-C. Consequently, the inspection of the retail outlet belonging to the petitioner-appellants carried out on 24.5.2007 and also the basis of termination of the dealership of the petitioner-appellants is contrary to the provisions of Clause 5.1 (2) of the Industrial Guidelines for Sample Collection and Testing. 8. With regard to the service of the second show-cause notice, which admittedly was issued to the petitioner-appellants as the respondent-corporation was not satisfied with the reply earlier submitted by the petitioner-appellants in response to the first show-cause notice, Mr. Prakash Padia learned counsel for the respondents submits before us that there is nothing on the record to show that the said notice was ever served upon the petitioner-appellants. Prakash Padia learned counsel for the respondents submits before us that there is nothing on the record to show that the said notice was ever served upon the petitioner-appellants. As such the entire action has been taken against the petitioner-appellants in gross violation of the principles of natural justice which has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner-appellants. 9. At this stage Mr. Shashi Nandan learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellants submitted vehemently before us that subsequent to the inspection which was carried out on 24.05.2007 a notice was issued to the petitioner-appellants on 12.06.2007. The petitioner-appellants had submitted a reply dated 21.06.2007 annexing therewith a report given by the officials of the Weights and Measure Department, dated 19.06.2007 which clearly indicated that there was no tampering in the delivery machine. According to the learned Senior Counsel the aforesaid report clearly dislodged the allegation of tampering with the delivery machines alleged against the petitioner-appellants. On this ground the termination order, dated 20.12.2007 passed by the respondent No. 1 the General Manager is also liable to be set aside. 10. It was also urged by the learned Senior Counsel that the learned single Judge has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge stands vitiated in law and fact. As such the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, we find that the issues of procedure which went to the root of the matter have not been dealt with by the learned single Judge. Consequently, we have ourselves considered the said issues in detail. It is established that the inspection which is the basis of the termination of the dealership of the retail outlet has not been carried out by a team comprising of Group-C Officers and secondly, the second show cause notice was not served upon the petitioner-appellants resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is established that the inspection which is the basis of the termination of the dealership of the retail outlet has not been carried out by a team comprising of Group-C Officers and secondly, the second show cause notice was not served upon the petitioner-appellants resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be served if the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge as well as the impugned order dated 21st July, 2009 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the respondent No. 3 the Executive Director (Retail and Sales) IOC, Bombay are set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority for decision afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, in support of the submissions, they wish to make before the Appellate Authority. We further make it clear that all other issues are left open to be adjudicated upon by the Appellate Authority afresh including the effect of the report submitted by the Department of Weights and Measures to which reference has been made by us earlier. 12. Accordingly, the present special appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the respondent No. 3 the Executive Director (Retail and Sales) IOC, Bombay is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh. Such decision shall be taken by the Appellate Authority i.e, the respondent No. 3 herein preferably within a period of three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order before him. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the present special appeal is partly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.