JUDGMENT : (Deepak Roshan, J.) 1. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5640 of 2007, whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned order dated 22.09.2007 and the matter was remitted back to the appellant-Corporation to pass an appropriate order afresh in accordance with law by complying the observations passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 621 of 2006. 2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary to decide this appeal are that the respondent was offered retail outlet dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and a dealership agreement was entered into with the respondent on 30.07.2004 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. The respondent was appointed as dealer in High-Speed Diesel Oil / Petrol and Lubricants at the retail outlet. 3. A random inspection was done at the respondent retail outlet (petrol pump) by the Manager (Quality Control), Eastern Zone, HPCL on 20.6.2006. The inspection was carried out in presence of the respondent’s representative and a report of inspection was prepared. Signature of the respondent’s representative was obtained on the report and a copy of the report was given to him by the inspecting team. It is stated that in course of inspection, following irregularities were detected: a. The ULP dispensing Unit was found delivering short by 80 ml. in 5 liters measure and the Weights and Measures seal on the totalizer of the same unit was found tampered. b. The tank lorry retention sample (for last 2 receipts of all products) was not made available to the Inspecting Officer at the time of inspection. 4. As per the appellant, the representative, in whose presence inspection was carried out and to whom a copy of the inspection report was handed over, did not raise any objection whatsoever either in respect of the manner in which the inspection was carried out or in respect of the findings mentioned in the inspection report, nor made any endorsement on the report raising any objection against the correctness of the findings. 5. On the basis of the inspection report, the appellant- Corporation served a show-cause notice on 26.06.2006 to the respondent calling upon him to explain the irregularities which were found in course of inspection. 6. 5. On the basis of the inspection report, the appellant- Corporation served a show-cause notice on 26.06.2006 to the respondent calling upon him to explain the irregularities which were found in course of inspection. 6. The respondent responded by submitting its show-cause replies on 12.07.2006 admitting therein that there was short delivery of about 80 ml in 5 liters in the dispensing Unit, but explained that the short delivery may be on account of the presence of air in the pipe. The respondent disputed the correctness of the inspection report stating therein that there could be no tampering of the dispensing Unit in view of the fact that in course of inspection carried out by the Inspector, Weights and Measure Department, Deoghar on 11.07.2006, the original seal and the cross seal on the dispensing/totalizer Unit, was found intact and not tampered. 7. The appellant did not feel satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent and issued a second show-cause notice calling upon the respondent to explain as to why penal action, as stipulated in the dealership agreement for terminating the dealership agreement, should not be taken. 8. In response, the respondent submitted his show-cause replies raising a fresh ground that the inspection was carried out after closure of the petrol pump at 6.00 PM and in absence of electricity, but the appellant-Corporation declared the same as unsatisfactory and cancelled the dealership agreement of the respondent. 9. Pursuant to the cancellation of dealership agreement, the respondent filed a writ application before this Court being WP(C) No. 6583 of 2006 which was dismissed; however, the respondent assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in LPA No. 621 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.01.2007 by setting aside the impugned order of termination of dealership and remitting the case back to the appellant to conduct a fresh enquiry by giving adequate opportunity to the respondent and pass an appropriate order. 10. Pursuant thereto, the appellant conducted a fresh enquiry by calling upon the respondent and passed order dated 26.03.2007 confirming the earlier order of termination dated 01.11.2006 and did not restore the dealership agreement. 11. 10. Pursuant thereto, the appellant conducted a fresh enquiry by calling upon the respondent and passed order dated 26.03.2007 confirming the earlier order of termination dated 01.11.2006 and did not restore the dealership agreement. 11. The respondent again assailed the order dated 26.03.2007 which was registered as WP(C) No. 1996 of 2007 and was disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2007 remitting the case back to the appellant to pass an appropriate order afresh by complying the observations and directions of this Court rendered in LPA No. 621 of 2006. 12. In the second round of litigation, the learned Single Judge has categorically observed that though in the impugned order the report of inspection carried out by the Inspector, Weights and Measure Department on 11.07.2006 was mentioned but no finding has been given with regard to the said document which had declared that the seals were not tampered. After the second remand order, the Regional Manager of the appellant-Corporation again conducted an enquiry and after conclusion of the enquiry the enquiry officer had recorded the impugned order confirming the termination of dealership agreement and rejecting the respondent’s prayer for restoration. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the impugned order was passed after allowing the respondent reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard and upon considering the entire documents submitted by the respondent the order was passed strictly in adherence to the observation contained in the order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 621 of 2006. 14. Learned counsel contended that the documents i.e. report of Inspector, Weight and Measure Department dated 11.07.2006 was not only considered but finding was also recorded thereon. He draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order of termination of dealership and submits that the authority has given a specific finding with respect to the report of the Inspector, Weights and Measure Department that the purported inspection by the Inspector, Weights and Measure Department was made after 21 days of the date of inspection carried out by the representative of the appellant- Corporation and no prior intimation was given to the appellant about any proposed inspection by the Weights and Measure Department. It has been submitted that since the writ Court has not considered and ignored the specific finding, the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set-aside and the order of termination dated 22.09.2007 be restored. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the light of report issued by the officer of Weights and Measure Department on 11.07.2006 it is amply clear that there was no tampering of the seals of the dispensing Unit and the appellant authorities ought to have considered that the seals of totalizer/dispensing Unit being intact, there could be no possibility of manipulation of the totalizer/dispensing reading and therefore no fault could be attributed to the respondent and admittedly the appellant even in the 2 nd round did not record any finding in respect of the report of the Weights and Measure Department and the learned writ Court has rightly remitted the case back to the appellant-Corporation again to pass an appropriate order afresh strictly complying the observation and direction passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 621 of 2006. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the impugned order, it is clear that the case has a chequered history and the respondents were forced to come thrice before this Court only for the reason that on earlier two occasions, no findings were given by the appellant- Corporation with regard to the finding given by the Weights and Measure Authorities. It appears from the record that when the first writ application was dismissed and the respondent preferred an appeal; the same was allowed by quashing the impugned order of termination and remitting the matter back to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry by giving adequate opportunity. Though the concerned authorities conducted a fresh enquiry but did not give any finding about the report issued by the Weights and Measure Department and thereafter in the second round of litigation; the writ petition was again remitted back with a specific direction that observation and direction of this Court in LPA No. 621 of 2006 must be complied with. Though the concerned authorities conducted a fresh enquiry but did not give any finding about the report issued by the Weights and Measure Department and thereafter in the second round of litigation; the writ petition was again remitted back with a specific direction that observation and direction of this Court in LPA No. 621 of 2006 must be complied with. However, the record suggests that even after second remand order; the appellant-Corporation did not adhere to the specific observation, which forced the respondent to file fresh writ petition, whereby again the learned Single Judge has remitted back the case for a fresh consideration. As a matter of fact, in the second round of litigation itself there is a categorically finding of learned Single Judge that though in the impugned order the report of inspection carried out by the Inspector, Weights and Measure on 11.07.2006 was mentioned but no finding has been given with regard to the said document which had declared that the seals were not tampered. 17. It further transpires that after the second round of litigation, though a finding was given that the purported inspection by the Inspector, Weights and Measure was made after 21 days of the date of inspection carried out by representative of the appellant- Corporation but the fact remains that nowhere in the finding it has been mentioned that when the report of Weights and Measure Department after inspecting the dispensing Unit on 11.07.2006 confirmed therein that there was no tampering of seal of dispensing Unit then merely on the ground that the inspection was made after 21 days of the date of inspection carried out by the representative of appellant, has no substance because once there is no tampering then certainly the claim of the respondent that there could be no possibility of manipulation of totalizer/dispensing reading and the shortage of delivery could be on account of various factors and reasons other then manipulation for which the respondent cannot be held liable or responsible. Admittedly, there is no finding on this aspect of the matter. 18. Admittedly, there is no finding on this aspect of the matter. 18. It is further evident from record that as per clause 6.1.3 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005 which governs the terms of the dealership agreement, in case of short delivery of products, if the weights and measure seals are intact, then the only prescribed penal action is immediate suspension of sales and supplies from the dispensing Unit till re-calibration is carried out by the Weights; and Measure Department in presence of an officer of the oil company and as per clause 6.1.4 of the same guidelines it is only in the case of tampering, the termination of dealership agreement can be made and not otherwise. 19. As a matter of fact, the main ground on which the order terminating the dealership agreement has been assailed by the respondent is that no finding has been recorded by the concerned authority of the appellant-Corporation in respect of the report of the Weights and Measure Department which was never disputed by the appellant. Admittedly, there is no clear finding on the report of Inspector, Weights and Measure Department rather it has been avoided merely on the ground that the inspection carried out by the representative of the appellant-Corporation would prevail upon the inspection carried out by the Inspector, Weights and Measure Department. Even otherwise, if the credibility of the report of Inspector, Weights and Measure prepared on 11.07.2007 is not disputed, then the concerned authority of the appellant-Corporation has to meet the finding made in the report of the said authority and to answer why the same should not be considered as reasonable explanation offered by the respondent. 20. As stated hereinabove, the ground stated confirming the order of termination of the dealership agreement and the rejection of respondent’s prayer for restoration of dealership are virtually the same as recorded in earlier orders without recording any finding on the reports of Inspector, Weights and Measure Department. The writ Court has rightly quashed the impugned order dated 22.09.2007 and remitted back the matter to the appellant- Corporation to pass an appropriate order afresh strictly by complying the observations and directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 621 of 2006. The writ Court has rightly quashed the impugned order dated 22.09.2007 and remitted back the matter to the appellant- Corporation to pass an appropriate order afresh strictly by complying the observations and directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 621 of 2006. We do not find any reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the order passed by the writ Court who has dealt each and every aspect of the matter and remitted the case back to the appellant-Corporation to pass a fresh order after giving specific finding to the report of the Weights and Measure, Department. 21. As a result, the instant appeal stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.