JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show-cause notice dated 15.12.2021, whereby the respondent-corporation has proposed termination of petitioner's dealership as per clause 5.1.4 of Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines-2012. 2. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards the facts of the case and pointed out that when the joint visit was conducted by team of the respondent-corporation at petitioner's retail outlet on 30.12.2020, errors E-028, E-0118, E-09 were noticed between 2:02 pm and 2:07 pm when FOIR DSR reports were examined for Pump No. 4. The same was got rectified by staff with tally support of technical team of the vendor. 3. While inviting Court's attention towards the report dated 30.12.2020 (Annex. 3), learned counsel highlighted that the officer of the respondent-corporation categorically reported that there were no external fittings in the dispensing unit as informed by the automation veeder and the concerned dispensing unit stopped working on account of voltage issue on 15.12.2020. 4. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the analysis report dated 25.02.2021 (Annex. 4), prepared by the Gilbarco Veeder-Root and pointed out that for the first time, it was reported that “manipulation of the dispensing unit was done by disconnecting the original Ecal connector of the DU with an external spurious device.” 5. Learned counsel took the Court through report dated 23.08.2021, given in this regard, more particularly the Hardware Analysis and Observations Results (Page-57) and underscored that report clearly suggested that “no traces of cuts, soldering, rework, removed components or external fittings were found.” 6. In view of the aforesaid and discrepancies in different reports, learned counsel argued that on receipt of notice dated 08.09.2021, the petitioner filed a detailed reply and pointed out that there was no mala-fide intention on the part of the petitioner company and the fault occurred essentially on technical grounds, which were beyond petitioner's control, but in spite of this the respondent-Corporation has issued a show-cause notice dated 15.12.2021 to the petitioner while proposing to terminate his dealership. 7. Learned counsel argued that the notice dated 15.12.2021 has been issued with pre-meditated mind and the respondents would terminate petitioner's dealership, if the indulgence is not granted. 8. Mr. 7. Learned counsel argued that the notice dated 15.12.2021 has been issued with pre-meditated mind and the respondents would terminate petitioner's dealership, if the indulgence is not granted. 8. Mr. Nishant Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has rushed to this Court simply against a show-cause notice (dated 15.12.2021), which is not alleged to be without jurisdiction or mala-fide in any manner. He argued that the High Court should refrain from interfering in this case, particularly, when no final order has yet been passed. 9. Having regard to the facts narrated and the discrepancies underscored by Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, this Court is of the view that petitioner's stand that there were technical glitches, cannot be outrightly brushed aside. 10. Looking to the peculiarity of the case, the respondent-Corporation is directed to afford personal hearing to the petitioner alongwith some technical expert, who can put forth petitioner's case in its proper perspective. 11. For the purpose aforesaid, the competent authority of the respondent No. 2-corporation shall inform the petitioner about the specific date, time and place of hearing, when the petitioner alongwith one technical expert would represent his cause. The petitioner may file written submission as well. 12. With the limited indulgence as aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. 13. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly. 14. Needless to observe that in case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, his right to take legal remedies shall stand reserved, as this Court has not pronounced upon the merits of the case.