JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner/respondent in the instant Appeal was a retail outlet by the name of M/s Modern Service Station. It was appointed a dealer in terms of petrol/HSD Pump Dealer Agreement executed between the petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation on 11.4.2011. The petitioner’s retail outlet had two dispensing units which were manufactured by M/s. Gilbarco Veeder Root (hereinafter referred to as “M/s GVR”). As per the Rules, the Dispensing Units had to be periodically stamped by the manufacturer and by the Weights and Measures Department and on 23.3.2019 the Weights and Measures Department had given its report as “Dispensing Unit is OK”. Similarly on 19.4.2019 also with regard to the Dispensing Units a report was given that “dispensing unit is ok so no need for calibration”. 2. On 20.4.2019, after taking into account all the reports, the Weights and Measures Department issued a verification certificate. Similarly on 14.1.2020, the Sales Officers inspected and reported “No variation in stocks”. 3. In April 2020 again the stamping of the two dispensing units was required and, therefore, on 13.3.2020, the petitioner deposited the required fees for the stamping of the two dispensing units. In March 2020, the pandemic of Covid – 19 broke and a lock down was imposed nationwide and, therefore, on 12.6.2020 a Government Order was issued extending the validity of the last existing “Stamping” till 30th September 2020. The petitioner requested the Weights and Measures Department on 13.9.2020 to grant permission to the M/s. GVR engineer to break open the seal for stamping/software upgradation which was last done around a year back. On 15.9.2020, A.M Retail Sales, Mathura-I, through Abhishek Sharma visited the petitioner’s retail outlet and issued verbal directions for immediate stoppage of sales from the dispensing units until the software of the dispensing unit was upgraded and re-stamping was done. Subsequently, the petitioner (respondent herein) stopped the dispensation of the diesel from the dispensing units. 4. On 16.9.2020 one Mr. Girendra, the Authorized Service Engineer of M/s GVR informed the petitioner that he had obtained permission from the Weights and Measures Department for breaking open the seal of the two dispensing units for software upgradation and for checking the dispensing unit for annual re-stamping. 5. Mr. 4. On 16.9.2020 one Mr. Girendra, the Authorized Service Engineer of M/s GVR informed the petitioner that he had obtained permission from the Weights and Measures Department for breaking open the seal of the two dispensing units for software upgradation and for checking the dispensing unit for annual re-stamping. 5. Mr. Girendra broke open the seal and prepared an inspection report wherein he had stated that both CPU Cards had defect and that two new CPU Cards were required for software upgradation. On 17.9.2020, the petitioner had expected the M/s GVR personnel to return and to correct the defect and also replace the two CPU Cards and thereafter upgrade the software. However, instead, on 17.9.2020 the Joint Inspection Team visited the retail outlet for allegedly conducting inspection of the dispensing unit and as per the report of the team the seals on the motherboard of both the dispensing units were not available and extra soldering with small wire was found in both the motherboards. The report thereafter stated that both the motherboards had been taken out from the dispensing unit in the presence of Sri Raja Babu Bansal (dealer's representative) and, thereafter, they were sealed and taken away. 6. On 21.9.2020, the petitioner received written instructions from Sri Abhishek Sharma, A.M. Retail Sales Mathura – I, of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to stop the sales from both the dispensing units. 7. On 8.10.2020, the petitioner received a fact finding letter wherein it was observed that as per the provisions of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 (amended on 3.8.2018), the irregularities which were found in the dispensing units of the petitioner's retail outlet were termed as “critical irregularities” and it was further observed that penal action in the form of termination of dealership was required. To the fact finding report, the petitioner put in a reply on 12.10.2020 and had stated that after Mr. Girendra of M/s GVR Engineering who had opened the machine on 16.9.2020, the petitioner had no control over the dispensing units and that he was responsible for the tampering with the machine. Paragraphs no. 3 and 4 of the reply dated 12.10.2020 being relevant are being reproduced here as under : “3. it is to be noted here that it is evidence that both the motherboards were good in all respects and as such he could update the software. Paragraphs no. 3 and 4 of the reply dated 12.10.2020 being relevant are being reproduced here as under : “3. it is to be noted here that it is evidence that both the motherboards were good in all respects and as such he could update the software. We apprehend that in this process of updating software some short circuit could have occurred in both the motherboards and he must have been trying to rectify the motherboard by soldering/extra wiring. The above act is without our consent and our knowledge. He left both the MPDU's with broken seals and left the RO after preparing his inspection report. 4. On 17.09.2020 A Joint Inspection with few officers (as described in your subjected letter) visited at our RO. They asked us to open both the MPDU's to verify the work carried out by the engineer Mr. Girendra who visited at our RO on 16.09.2020. We opened the MPDU's and it was pointed out to us that the seals of the motherboards are broken and are having soldering and extra wire. We told the team members that all these acts were carried out by Mr. Girendra on his visit on 16.09.2020, which we were totally not in our knowledge. And we also told them that the machine was in same condition for almost 26 hours as left by the fitter. This states that we don't have any wrong intention. A report was made by the members of the team and we were made to sign on it.” 8. From the perusal of paragraphs no. 3 and 4 of the reply, it is evident that the petitioner had no control over the dispensing units as the same had been opened by Mr. Girendra, the Engineer of the M/s. GVR. The report as was submitted by the Indian Oil Corporation on 17.9.2020 and on the basis of which the fact finding report was submitted on 8.10.2020 was not denied by the petitioner. Evidently, it had only stated that the missing seal on the motherboard, extra soldering with small wires on both the motherboards were such defects which had crept in because of the opening of the units by Mr. Girendra, the Engineer of the M/s GVR and that he himself was responsible for any tampering etc. Evidently, it had only stated that the missing seal on the motherboard, extra soldering with small wires on both the motherboards were such defects which had crept in because of the opening of the units by Mr. Girendra, the Engineer of the M/s GVR and that he himself was responsible for any tampering etc. The petitioner had insisted that in view of clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, which was being used against the petitioner, also had provided that in cases where views and independent opinion of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (hereinafter referred to as “the OEM”) had to be obtained then they should be taken and only then a suitable decision could be taken. After the petitioner had submitted his reply and the petitioner's unit had been asked to be shut down, the petitioner waited for some order to be passed and when that was not done it approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ – C No. 23158 of 2020 (M/s Modern Service Station and 2 others vs. Union of India and 5 others) which was disposed of by this Court by means of order dated 18.12.2020 directing the respondents to conclude the pending enquiry initiated against the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 weeks. Thereafter a Joint Inspection of the Retail Outlet was once again conducted by the same team which had conducted the inspection previously on 17.9.2020. 9. This inspection was carried on 19.12.2020 once again in the presence of Raja Babu Bansal, the authorized representative of the petitioner and the team once again noticed the very same errors and it sealed the dispensing units and collected the relevant parts of both the dispensing units for further testing. 10. On 21.3.2021, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Indian Oil Corporation calling upon the petitioner to explain within 15 days as to why action should not be initiated against the petitioner for the breach of Terms and Conditions of the dealership agreement and the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012. 11. The show cause notice which ran into 4 pages basically alleged that there was tampering in the dispensing unit of the petitioner which was in violation of the dealership agreement dated 11.4.2011 and the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012. 12. 11. The show cause notice which ran into 4 pages basically alleged that there was tampering in the dispensing unit of the petitioner which was in violation of the dealership agreement dated 11.4.2011 and the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012. 12. The petitioner submitted it’s reply on 21.6.2021 to the show cause notice dated 21.3.2021 and the gist of the reply was that it had carried on with the dealership with utmost sincerity ever since 11.4.2011. When they had obtained the dealership they had run it with unblemished track record. The petitioner in the reply had denied any soldering etc. and had also denied that it had put any wire etc. on the motherboard. The petitioner had only blamed the authorized service engineer of M/s. GVR who had visited the retail outlet of the petitioner on 16.9.2020 for the upgradation of the software and for the facilitating of the stamping of the dispensing unit. The paragraph 17 of he reply sent by the petitioner on 21.6.2021 is relevant for the purpose of this case wherein the petitioner had alleged that everything irregular which was found by the Indian Oil Corporation was not done by the petitioner but by the Engineer of M/s. GVR who had visited the retail outlet on 16.9.2020. 13. In paragraph no. 22 of the reply dated 21.6.2021, the petitioner had categorically stated that they had no knowledge of what was done by the Engineer of M/s. GVR, Sri Girendra. The paragraph no. 22 of the reply is being reproduced here as under: - “22. In so far as the allegation contained in the SCN (at page 2 & 3), that we have accepted in our reply dt. 12.10.2020 about the broken DU seals, soldering as well as extra wire in the DU, is concerned, we wish to reiterate that we had simply shared our opinion/ apprehension in the peculiar factual conspectus of the present case, which cannot be construed as our admission. It is beyond our knowledge as to what was done by the GVR Engineer - Mr. Girendra on 16.09.2020 in the DUs. It appeared to us (theoretically) that the GVR Engineer might have placed the alleged soldering and extra wire on the motherboard while attempting to upgrade its software, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Therefore, it will be in the Interest of Justice and fairness that an explanation be sought from the GVR Engineer, Mr. Girendra on 16.09.2020 in the DUs. It appeared to us (theoretically) that the GVR Engineer might have placed the alleged soldering and extra wire on the motherboard while attempting to upgrade its software, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Therefore, it will be in the Interest of Justice and fairness that an explanation be sought from the GVR Engineer, Mr. Girendra, instead of taking action against us.” 14. However upon considering the show cause notice and the reply of the petitioner, the dealership of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 5.10.2021. 15. This order was appealed against under Section 8.9 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2012 and when the same was dismissed on 7.4.2022, a writ petition being Writ – C no. 13514 of 2022 was filed. This writ petition when was allowed on 18.5.2023, the instant Special Appeal has been filed. 16. Sri Anil Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shrey Sharma learned counsel for the appellants has argued that : (a). The learned Single Judge erred when it entered into the decision making process of the Indian Oil Corporation and submitted that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to contractual matters is limited. (b). Even if the decision making process is looked into then it becomes evident that the Engineer of M/s. GVR when it had given its report had clearly observed that there was manipulation in the dispensing unit. The expert opinion of the OEM i.e. M/s. GVR was against the petitioner (respondent in the Appeal) and that the expert opinion of the OEM was not considered by the learned Single Judge. (c). The finding of the learned Single Judge that the principles of natural justice were violated was also erroneous inasmuch as the show cause notice was given and the petitioner had replied and thereafter the orders were passed. (d). Under Clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2012, independent opinion of the OEM i.e. M/s. GVR was obtained and only on the opinion of the OEM action was taken. (e). (d). Under Clause 5.1.4 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2012, independent opinion of the OEM i.e. M/s. GVR was obtained and only on the opinion of the OEM action was taken. (e). Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the submission of the petitioner (respondent herein) that the manipulation in the dispensing unit could have been done by the Engineer of the OEM sometime during the inspection on 16.9.2020 was not supported by any material evidence available on record and he, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge had placed a negative burden on the appellants to prove allegations made by the dealer (respondent herein). (f). Learned Single Judge had not considered the fact that the manipulation in the cards would lead to affected delivery of petroleum products from the dispensing units and that there was no occasion for the service engineer to make any addition/alteration during the inspection dated 16.9.2020. He submits that the dealer alone stood to benefit from any addition/modification/tampering which was done to the dispensing unit. (g). Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that even if the report dated 16.9.2020 is perused, it becomes clear that the Engineer of M/s. GVR had found that both the CPU Cards in both the dispensing units were found defective. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has further to bolster his arguments relied upon a judgement of this Court dated 13.7.2017 passed in Writ – C No. 29859 of 2017 (Savitri Devi and 2 others v. Union of India and 4 others) and has supported his submissions. For a similar purpose, he relied upon the judgement of this Court passed on 22.3.2018 in Writ – C No. 50151 of 2017. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner (respondents here) Ms. Shreya Gupta has opposed the Special Appeal and has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. She has submitted that the learned Single Judge had very correctly allowed the writ petition basing his judgement on the fact that the defence raised by the petitioner (respondent here) regarding the visit of the M/s. GVR Engineer on 16.9.2020 was not considered at all. She submits that during the visit on 16.9.2020 vital pieces of evidence were lost which were not considered at the time of the termination of the dealership and this was, she submits, in gross-violation of the principles of natural justice. She submits that during the visit on 16.9.2020 vital pieces of evidence were lost which were not considered at the time of the termination of the dealership and this was, she submits, in gross-violation of the principles of natural justice. She had further submitted that the information regarding the vital piece of evidence which was in possession of the engineer was not a part of the procedure but it related to the merits of the case. She submits that when on 16.9.2020, the engineer of M/s. GVR Mr. Girendra came at the petitioner’ retail outlet and broke open the seal of the dispensing units and fiddled with the units for upgrading them then it could safely be said that the dispensing units were no longer in the guardianship of the dealers. Instead they were now being looked after by the Engineer of M/s. GVR who had broken the seal and had fiddled with the CPU Cards etc. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner(respondent here) submitted that when this submission/argument was made in the reply to the show cause notice then the Indian Oil Corporation did not care to include the M/s. GVR’s Engineer in the decision making process. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent here) has submitted that learned Single Judge, therefore, had found that when issues raised by the petitioners were not dealt with then there was actual violation of the principles of natural justice. She submits that “fair hearing” and “opportunity of hearing” during the enquiry proceedings would be meaningless in case the Enquiry Officer does not consider the submissions which were raised in defence by the person who was being proceeded against. She submits that the learned Single Judge had clearly found that the opportunity of hearing would include due consideration of all defences raised by a person who was being proceeded against and, therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents states that if the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the reply then it was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that before the unit was sealed there was absolutely no complaint from any quarter with regard to the volume of dispensation. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner further argued that if there is violation of principles of natural justice then that itself becomes a ground for allowing the writ petition. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that before the unit was sealed there was absolutely no complaint from any quarter with regard to the volume of dispensation. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner further argued that if there is violation of principles of natural justice then that itself becomes a ground for allowing the writ petition. She has relied upon the decision of The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. and others vs. Kumari Chitra Srivastava and Others reported in 1970 (1) SCC 121 and has argued that the Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price – a small price indeed – has to be paid if we desire the society to be governed by the rule of law. Since the learned counsel has specifically relied upon paragraphs no. 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgement, they are being reproduced here as under:- “7. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. C.B. Agarwala, contends that the facts are not in dispute and it is further clear that no useful purpose would have been served if the Board had served a show-cause notice on the petitioner. He says that in view of these circumstances it was not necessary for the Board to have issued a show-cause notice. We are unable to accept this contention. Whether a duty arises in a particular case to issue a show cause notice before inflicting a penalty does not depend on the authority's satisfaction that the person to be penalised has no defence but on the nature of the order proposed to be passed. 8. We agree with the High Court that the impugned order imposed a penalty. The petitioner had appeared in the examination and answered all the question papers. According to her she had passed. To deny her the fruits of her labour cannot but be called a penalty. We are unable to appreciate the contention that the Board in "cancelling her examination" was not exercising quasi-judicial functions. The learned counsel urges that this would be casting a heavy burden on the Board. Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price-a small price indeed-has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the rule of law. The learned counsel urges that this would be casting a heavy burden on the Board. Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price-a small price indeed-has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the rule of law. We should not be taken to have decided that this rule will also apply when a candidate is refused admission to an examination. We are not concerned with this question and say nothing about it.” 23. Learned counsel also had submitted that the case may not be remanded back for considering the case as might be put forth by the engineer of the M/s GVR. She submits that the evidence having not been put in sealed cover must have by now been fiddled by all and sundry. 24. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, we are definitely of the view that the learned Single Judge while dealing with the case of the petitioner correctly came to the conclusion that when a particular defence which was taken by the petitioner was not considered then that itself becomes a violation of the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the petitioner had taken a definite stand that when on 16.9.2020, the engineer of M/s. GVR Mr. Girendra had opened the unit and had broken the seal then the dispensing unit was no longer in the control of the petitioner/respondents and there was every possibility of the seal being tampered and the unit being fiddled with by the engineer of M/s. GVR Mr. Girendra. When the defence of the petitioner was not considered the learned Single Judge correctly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was wronged inasmuch as there was a definite violation of principles of natural justice. Also the learned Single Judge rightly put an end to the matter and did not remand the case for a fresh appraisal. He, therefore, rightly relied upon the decision in M/s Chaudhary Filling Point, Kazipur through its Prop. And another vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Food & Civil Supplies and Ors. reported in 2019 (3) ADJ 345 the relevant paragraph no. 39 is being reproduced here as under : “39. He, therefore, rightly relied upon the decision in M/s Chaudhary Filling Point, Kazipur through its Prop. And another vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Food & Civil Supplies and Ors. reported in 2019 (3) ADJ 345 the relevant paragraph no. 39 is being reproduced here as under : “39. As seen from the reading of the impugned order, the only reason assigned for being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner was that there was tampering in the DU and pulsar card contains certain soldering marks. However, what was not considered by the competent authority was that at what point of time this unauthorized tampering/soldering was done in the dispensing unit and how the dealer is manipulating the distribution of fuel. No material, much less credible one has been brought on record by the respondents to disclose the unauthorized access to the equipment by the petitioner. It was specific stand of the petitioner that periodically the Weights and Measurements Department officials inspected the seals and they were found to be intact. Further more, what is the impact on tampering/soldering in delivery unit is not disclosed. How the dealer can manipulate delivery of fuel by inserting such unit is not explained. The only objective of a dealer to tamper with dispensing unit is to manipulate delivery of fuel. In this case, the delivery of fuel was found to be accurate prior to checking of unit and after the checking. Furthermore, the defence of the petitioner that it is possible that the supplier himself might have done soldering while repairing for proper functioning of the unit by supplier himself cannot be brushed aside.” 25. This Appellate Court, thus, finds that when the main defence of the petitioner that i.e. the tampering was, in fact, a result of the act of the Original Equipment Manufacturer and that the petitioner had no hand in it was not considered then definitely the petitioner’s interest was prejudiced. 26. We are thus of the view that the writ petition was rightly allowed and the matter was also rightly not remanded back. 26. We are thus of the view that the writ petition was rightly allowed and the matter was also rightly not remanded back. This we say as the appellants definitely had not been able to bring on record any fact by which it could be ascertained that the dealer had an authorized access to the equipment after the M/s GVR engineer had opened the dispensing unit and had fiddled with the motherboard and that the dealer was in any way responsible for the tampering etc. 27. For the reasons stated above, the Special Appeal stands dismissed.