IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1517 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/10/2008 in WP NO : 1517 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Kotni Durga Prasad, S/o. Late Grumurthy, M/s Kotni Gurumurthy Sons, HPCL., Dealers, petrol Bank, R/o. Kasibugga-532 222, Srikakulam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Secunderabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : MR.J.ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1517 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri J.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 21-10-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23240 of 2008, dismissing the writ petition. 3. Appellant is petitioner and respondents are respondents in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. The petitioner was appointed as a Dealer for Retail Sale of Petrol, Diesel and other Petroleum Products from the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for brevity “the Corporation”) and owned a outlet at Chinnabadam Post, Kasibugga, Srikakulam District. It appears that the authorities have conducted an inspection at the outlet of the petitioner and in that process they collected the required number of samples, out of which one sample was sent to the Laboratory of the Corporation for testing. Basing on the report of the Laboratory and having found that there is adulteration in the Diesel, a show cause notice, dated 10-06-2008, has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner offered his explanation on 18-06-2008 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. No decision has yet been taken by the authorities basing on the explanation offered by the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner has made a request to send the second sample for testing to an independent Laboratory. The said request of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the Corporation by order, dated 29-07-2008, on the ground that the hinges of the wooden box containing the retention sample container were tampered. It was also observed that the cellophane tape, which was stuck around the wooden box, was also altered. These two factors, which have already been taken note of by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, dated 21-10-2008, would only reveal that the sampling container was tampered. In such an event, there is any amount of justification for the Corporation to reject the request of the petitioner to send the second sample to an independent Laboratory. 6. In fact, there is no complaint as regards the opinion expressed by the Laboratory of the Corporation, which conducted the test on the sample, and basing on the report of the Laboratory only the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the collection of samples itself was not properly done. According to the learned counsel the samples should have been collected in a glass container, instead of collecting the same in a wooden container, as was done in the present case. 8. However, no information is forthcoming as to whether these averments were specifically made in the explanation offered by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 9. Notwithstanding the above facts, there is a categorical finding recorded by the Corporation that the hinges of the wooden box containing the retention sample were tampered. In such an event, the request made by the petitioner deserves to be rejected and this Court cannot interfere and issue any directions as sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, dated 21-10-2008, of the learned Single Judge and consequently, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 03-12-2008. Msr. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1517 of 2008 03-12-2008 (Msr)