of the Agreement, the opinion of the Chief General Manager on the 6 (2019) 19 SCC 662 6contamination of products is slated to be final, however, termination of the respondent’s license was issued by the Senior Regional Manager. (iv) The agreement does not prescribe any procedure for collection of samples, testing or any other procedure of alleged adulteration of products. The Control Order (2005) was preceded by a similar order of 1998 and both would be binding on an oil manufacturing company. As such the procedure mentioned in Clause 7 of the Control Order would be required to be followed. (v) The process of drawing the sample by the agency was improper. The sample collected was in the absence of an authorized officer of the appellant. The blank space for the signatures of ‘OMC Field Officer’ was left blank. (vi) Due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Control Order, the drawing of samples is without basis. (vii) R.M. Service Centre (supra) does not support the case of the