facts, the respondents have taken issue with the process of collection of samples, being aggrieved by the fact that a third party, namely, SGS India was appointed to take samples and not with the lack of service of notice or any other such non-compliance of the principles of natural justice as discussed in the said judgment. 15. We have also perused the decision in Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.13. This judgment deals with the correctness of writ proceedings in respect of contractual matters. It was observed the petitioner’s dealership which was their “bread & butter” came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. As such, a writ petition would be maintainable. The maintainability is not an issue before us. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable to the present case. 16. That apart, the observations in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,14 tell us that in deference to judicial discipline and decorum, the judgments/orders