IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.799 of 2007 MRS.ALIA KHAN @ KHANAUM & ANR Versus THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 13th August, 2008. The appellant no.1 had a dealership for retail outlet (Petrol) at Darbhanga from IBP Company. The retail outlet was run by her in the name of M/s Royal Petroleum (appellant no.2). On 9th December, 2006, during the course of inspection, certain irregularities were found; particularly density of oil was detected against permissible limits and there was stock variation as well. That there were irregularities were not specifically denied by the first appellant. Her explanation was that her husband, who used to look after the business was away due to his illness, and the irregularities might have been committed by the staff members, which was without her knowledge. A show cause notice was given to her for termination of dealership and after consideration of the cause shown by her, the dealership agreement came to be cancelled vide order dated 2nd May, 2007. An appeal before the Executive Director also came to be - 2 - dismissed on 20th June, 2007. 2. The appellants filed the writ petition before this Court challenging the termination of the dealership agreement unsuccessfully and hence the appeal. 3. Nothing has been shown to us that may persuade us to take a view different from that of the Single Judge. That the order of termination of dealership agreement came to be passed after following the principles of natural justice is not even disputed. However, the senior counsel submits that this was an isolated incident where irregularities were found and, in the circumstances, the termination of dealership agreement is harsh. 4. Although we do not intend to interfere with the impugned order dated 14th August, 2007 passed by the Single Judge and the order passed by the original authority terminating dealership agreement of the first appellant, but we observe that this will not preclude the first appellant in making representation to the concerned authorities for a relook at the matter. We observe that if such a representation is made the concerned authorities may consider the same as may be thought fit in law. 5. L.P.A. is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-