1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.412 OF 2009 Mrunalini Rustomrao Mhaske ... Petitioner Vs. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. A.S. Sakhardande i/by Mr. P.H. Dharmadhikari for the petitioner. Mr. M.D. Siodia i/by M/s. Rustomji & Ginwala for the respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2009 P.C.: In the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the legality and correctness of the order dated 20th February, 2009 vide which the authorities concerned have terminated the dealership agreement in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that her dealership has been canceled in arbitrary manner and without any basis. According to him, there 2 were other dealers also whose samples were found to be failing the test but they have been left without taking any appropriate action and the petitioner has been singled out for termination of the dealership agreement. 2. We are unable to accept either of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, the petitioner was given a show- cause notice to which she submitted a detailed reply on 18th June, 2008. Thereafter, detailed order has been passed. It will be useful to refer to the opening part of the impugned order which reads as under: “We write further to our letter of even reference dated 18.06.2008. We have given therein some of the relevant clauses of the Dealership Agreement dated 01.12.1993 and breaches of the same committed by you. Following breaches have been pointed out therein- (i) that the samples of HSD drawn by the SGS Officials from the HSD tank of this Retail Outlet during inspection on 08.05.2008 when first tested for market at the Retail Outlet site and thereafter second time on 09.05.2008 in the authorized laboratory at Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., QC Lab Sewree in the presence of your representative had failed the market test on both the occasions as the market column turned pink meaning thereby that there was presence of marker in HSD and thus was found to be adulterated/spurious. The corresponding 3 tank lorry sample had passed. (ii) further, a two member committee of the officials of the Company, constituted on your representation, on visiting the Retail Outlet and after due enquiries confirmed the breaches as aforesaid regarding adulteration besides mentioning other breaches and negligence committed by you in their report. (iii) keeping the RO dry and not selling the product of the Corporation to public for over 24 hours on various occasions.” 3. After mentioning the facts in paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order, every contention raised by the petitioner was considered by the authority and valid reasons have been given in support of the conclusions arrived at finally. 4. On the query from the court to the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, it is stated that there is no case in the recent times where the dealers faced identical consequences like the petitioner and all dealers have not been treated similarly. However, the cases where tankers sample was not found to be defective and even then if RO sample was found to be defective, action has been taken against such dealers. 5. In view of this clarification, in any case, we see no reason to interfere. Dismissed. No order as to costs. 4 CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.