IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.123 of 2009 1. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPoration through its Chairman and Managing Director having its Registered Office at 17,Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020 2. The General Manager(North Central Zone), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Plot No.- 01, Nehru Enclave, Gomti Nager, Lucknow-226010 3. The Senior Regional Manager( Retail), M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001 4. The Area Sales Manager(Patna Region), M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001 … … Appellants Versus M/S GAURI SHANKAR SHYAM BABU, a Partnership firm having its Registered Office at Station road and Mahatma Gandhi Setu Road both the Retail Outlets Office situated at Hajipur,Distt.Vaishali through its Sr. Partner Sri Shyam Babu Prasad, son of late Gauri Shankar Prasad, resident of Vilalge Hathssrganj, P.S. Hajipur Town,Districtr Vaishali … … Respondent For the appellants: Mr. Rajnandan Prasad Mr.Rakesh Kumar For the respondent: Mr. Mrigank Mauli Mr. Vinay Mistry Mr. Sajal Kumar Sinha Mr. Shailendra Singh ----------- 2. 20.2.2009 The respondents-appellants aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17140 of 2008 have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to the 2 present appeal are that the writ petitioner, respondent herein, is a retail dealer of Motor Spirit ( petrol) and High Speed Diesel( Diesel) of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. His dealership was terminated on the ground that motor spirit(petrol) was not found conforming to standard specification on chemical examination. On challenge made by it, the learned Single Judge set aside that order and while doing so observed as follows:- “The testing procedures are prescribed by the Marketing Discipline Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in consultation with the nationalized Oil Company. It is not disputed that those guidelines provide that whenever samples are to be tested then at least there contemporaneous sample are to be tested. They are the depot sample of the Oil Company from which delivery is effected to the tanker for onward delivery to the dealer. The second is the sample from the tanker, which delivers the product to the dealer and the third is the dealer sample. This is to safeguard the dealer from any testing or at earlier stage. It is only when the earlier two samples i.e. depot sample and the tank lorry sample are found to be good that action can be taken against the petitioner. Undisputedly, in the present case, even though obligation was on the resp0ondent Corporation to get their samples and tested, for which a request was also made by the petitioner, it was not so done. Then the Marketing Discipline Guideline, it is not disputed, provides that when samples are taken, three contemporaneous samples of nozzle have to be preserved. If the dealer 3 objects to the first testing, he has a right to get the second sample tested in his presence. Undisputedly, in the present case, in spite of dealer’s request, this was not done. In my view, the more drastic action the greater compliance to safeguard will be insisted by the Court. These were the minimal safeguard available to a dealer but they were not adhered to by the Corporation. Once it is so then no reliance can be placed on the report obtained by the Corporation behind the back of the petitioner. It loses all authenticities. If that be so, then there is no report on which the Corporation could have validly acted.” We do not find any error in the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed in limine. Kanth C.K.Prasad,A.C.J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)