IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.A.No.568 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).6476/2008 DATED 25.2.2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- P.K.GOPI, PROPRIETOR, M/S.CLASSIC FUELING AND SERVICES, INDIAN OIL DEALER, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 540. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., TRIVANDRUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, PREMIER PARK, INJAKKAL JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 008. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GASES, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & K.M.Joseph, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.568 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph,J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P10 to the extent it rejects the request of the appellant to have the second test conducted at KRL Lab. 2. The appellant is running a retail outlet for vending petroleum products of the first respondent-Indian Oil Corporation. Samples taken from the outlet of the appellant did not pass the quality test conducted by the 1st respondent. According to the appellant, out of the nine tests, only in one sample taken from the appellant's outlet failed. Therefore, the appellant sought a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct another test in another Lab, namely KRL Lab. The same was declined by the first respondent. That is how the writ petition came to be filed. 3. The learned Single Judge took note of Clause 2.5.D of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines and took the view that the samples are to be tested only in the same lab. Finding that the action of the first respondent-Corporation was in terms of the guidelines, the writ petition came to be rejected. 4. We heard Sri.George Thomas Mevada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Corporation. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-Corporation points out that the first respondent is amenable to test W.A.No.568 of 2008 - 2 - the sample in IOC Lab or BPC Lab at Irumpanam. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is amenable to have the sample tested at BPC Lab at Irumpanam. 6. In the light of these developments, the Writ Appeal is disposed of as follows: The sample taken from the appellant shall be tested in BPC Lab at Irumpanam, as proposed in Exhibit P10. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph vku/- Judge