WP(C) 2676/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK POTSANGBAM Heard Mr. B.C.Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. L.Rahman , learned couns el for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents1,2,3,4 and 7 and the rests are represented being the l earned Govt. Advocate. Office Note dated 22.7.2009 indicates that notice upon the respondents has alrea dy been served by registered post and therefore, notice is presumed. The petitio ner is a partnership firm running a retail outlet/ Dealership (Petrol and Diesel ) at Mangaldoi town and on the allegation that the sample of petrol collected fr om the outlet of the petitioner was found adulterated when marker system was app lied through respondent No. 8 and as a consequence, the licence for running the retail outlet, under the name and style M/S Dharamchand Nauratanmal, had been su spended by an order dated 17.10.2008 ,issued by the Indian Oil Corporation. It i s pertinent to mention that there is no allegation of adulteration in respect of Diesel. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the suspension and cancellation of licence of petrol retail outlet is governed by the Petroleum Act, 1934. As per the Rule 152(i)(iii)(b), of the Petroleum Rul es, 2002, the maximum period of suspension cannot exceed more than three months. In other words, by these provisions, an embargo has been imposed upon the I.O. C authority not to impose any suspension of a retail outlet of petrol/diesel, mo re than three months. At this stage, Mr. M.K.Chioudhury, learned Standing Counse l appearing for the I.O.C has submitted that process for cancellation of licence had been taken up by the Corporation. It must be understood clearly that the ch allenge in this case is against the suspension order which has been allowed to c ontinue beyond the statutory period as provided under Rule 152 of the Petroleum Act,1934 and this factum is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respond ents. On perusal of the Rule 152(1) (iii)(b), it is very clear that the IOC has the po wer to impose suspension of licence of retail outlet for a period of three month s and the power of suspension of licence is to be exercised strictly in terms o f the statutory provision. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this C ourt is of the opinion that the continuation of the suspension order dated 17.10 .2008 ( Annexure-D to the writ petition ) cannot be permitted. Thus, the suspens ion order dated 17.10.2008 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to take appropriate steps for restoration of the licence to the petitioner forthw ith. With the above observations and direction, this writ petition stands dis posed of.