IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2942 of 2008 Between: Sri Srinivasa Enterprises, IOC Retail Qutlet, Proprietor: Adireddy Jyothi Lodagalavanipalem, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Indian Oil Corportion Ltd., Visakha Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram sales Area, LIC Buildings 8th Floor, Visakhaptnam, rep by Divisional Manager. 2 Sales Officer (RS) Vizianagaram, Indian oil Corporation, Visakha Divisional Office, Vizianagaram Sales Area LIC Buiildings, 8th Floor Visakhapatnam. 3 SGS India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, orany other order appropriate Writ, direction or order declarignthe action fo the 3rd respondent in searching, conducting the test and taking smaples from the petitioner retail outlet and the action of the 2nd respondnet in directing the stoppage of sales of the petroleum procects by the petitioner and in not sending the sample of HSD taken on 08-02- 2008 from the petitioner for Laboratory test as illegal and void; and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstancesofthe case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.THOOMSRINIVAS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2942 of 2008 ORAL ORDER The petitioner herein is a dealer of the 1st respondent- Corporation for sale of Petroleum products through its retail outlet at Lodagalavanipalem of Visakhapatnam District. On 07- 02-2008 the 3rd respondent visited the retail outlet of the petitioner and drawn samples of MS & HSD from the underground tanks and conducted ﬁeld test. It appears that in the said test the samples were found pink colour, indicting adulteration. In the circumstances the MS and HSD sales were suspended on 08-02- 2008. On 8.2.2008 the Sales Oﬃcer again drawn samples of MS and HSD from the retail outlet of the petitioner so as to send the same for lab testing. One part of the said samples was also handed over to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, on 11-02-2008 the Laboratory test of the sample collected by the 3rd respondent was conducted in the Visakha Lab of the 1st respondent Corporation. However the samples collected by the Sales Oﬃcer were not tested inspite of the request made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent in searching, conducting the test and taking sample from the petitioner retail outlet as well as the action of the 2nd respondent in directing the stoppage of sales of the petroleum products by the petitioner and particularly the action of the respondents in not sending sample of MS & HSD taken on 08-02-2008 from the petitioner for laboratory test, as arbitrary and illegal. This Court while directing rule nisi passed an order on 18-04- 2008 in WPMP No.3815 of 2008 as under: “This is an application to direct respondent No.2 to send sample of HSD bearing Wooden Box Seal No.207644 and A-1 Container Seal No.207695 taken from the petitioner’s retail outlet on 08-02-2008 for laboratory test. Heard Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar for respondents. The petitioner’s retail outlet was inspected and diﬀerent samples were taken from the same. In respect of MS & HSD, sales sere suspended questioning which the present writ petition is ﬁled. The petitioner contended that while taking the samples, in respect of HSD, 3 samples were taken, the petitioner was given two samples the numbers of which have been mentioned above and though the petitioner requested for sending the said samples retained with it for laboratory test, respondents have not responded to the said request. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the interests of the respondents if the samples which were handed over to the petitioner in respect of HSD are sent for testing in the laboratory of the respondents. Hence WPMP is allowed.” In compliance with the said order, the samples drawn on 08- 02-2008 and were handed over to the petitioner were sent for testing in the laboratory of the respondents. The test report was received on 23-05-2008 which was found to be negative(not pink). Having regard to the said subsequent events, which were brought on record by way of an additional aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further action is warranted on the basis of the inspection conducted by the 3rd respondent on 07-02-2008 and the writ petition may be allowed. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Sri T.Srinivas has not disputed the fact that the test report dated.02-05-2008 was infavour of the petitioner and the samples were found to be negative. Having regard to the above subsequent events the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner on the basis of the inspection conducted on 07-02-2008 and further to issue necessary orders forthwith for restoration of the sales in the petitioner retail outlet. No order as to costs. _________ G.ROHINI,J 26th September,2008 *TSNR