IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4906 of 2009 Date of decision: March 27, 2009. M/s Brahm Sarup & Sons ...Petitioner(s) v. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Dalip Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the show cause notice-cum- order dated 21.2.2009 (Annexure P-12) whereby it has been called upon to explain as to why the Dealership be not terminated. Simultaneously, the respondent-Company has also stopped the supply of petroleum products and has taken over the retail outset premises. It appears that the retail outlet is now being operated by the company itself. The aforesaid sudden action is claimed to have been taken against the petitioner on the ground that its sale tax registration number has been cancelled by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (DETC), Chandigarh – the competent authority. Suffice it to say that the petitioner-firm had challenged the said order of the DETC, Chandigarh in a statutory appeal No.122/2007 which was allowed by the VAT Tribunal vide its order dated 9.7.2008 (Annexure P-9). Prima-facie, therefore, it appears that the show cause has been served upon the petitioner without verifying the correct facts and might be for other than the bona fide reasons. However, it is not expedient for this court to express any opinion at this stage. The petitioner has immediately responded vide its reply dated 23.2.2009 (Annexure P-14), followed by another supplementary reply dated 14.3.2009 (Annexure P-15). No final decision thereafter has been taken by the competent authority. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and keeping in view the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, however, without expressing any views on merits of the petitioner's claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 (whosoever is the competent authority out of them) to take cognizance of the replies dated 23.2.2009 and 14.3.2009 (Annexures P-14 & P-15) and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While taking the decision, they are directed to keep in view the order dated 9.7.2008 passed by the VAT Tribunal. Needless to say that in case any adverse order is passed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to impugn the same in accordance with law. Dasti March 27, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge