THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.458 OF 2011 DATED: 30-06-2011. BETWEEN: M/S SRI VENKATESWARA FILLING STATION, ASWARAPOET, ASWARAOPET MANDAL, KHAMMAM DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR CHITLURI GANGADHAR RAO.. APPELLANT AND THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.458 OF 2011 O R D E R : This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21.6.2011 of the learned single Judge disposing of the writ petition. The appellant who is the writ petitioner is a retail petroleum outlet dealer accredited to the 2nd respondent- Corporation. On 2.2.2011 after Motor Spirit (MS) and High Speed Diesel (HSD) were downloaded into the petitioner’s retail outlet, the Assistant Supply Officer (of the Civil Supplies Department) inspected the appellant’s outlet and drew samples. Those samples were sent for analysis to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Laboratories, Hyderabad. The samples which were drawn by the 2nd respondent-Corporation were sent to the authorised laboratory of 2nd respondent-Corporation at Visakhapatnam. It appears that the Visakhapatnam laboratory did not find any incongruence between the prescribed standards and the samples drawn from the appellant’s outlet; while the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Laboratories, Hyderabad found variance in the standards. Even before the report of the Visakhapatnam laboratory was received by the 2nd respondent-Corporation (finding no variation in the samples), the 1st respondent passed an order dated 16.6.2011 suspending the licence of the appellant on the ground of vending sub-standard Motor Spirit. In declining to interfere with the order suspending the appellant’s outlet, the learned single Judge recorded that no case was made out in the circumstances where atleast one report is available setting out storage and vending of sub-standard Motor Spirit at the appellant’s retail petroleum outlet and disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to supply a copy of the report of the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Laboratories, Hyderabad to the petitioner within one week; permit the petitioner to submit his explanation on receipt of the said report, to the 1st respondent; and directed the 1st respondent to conduct and conclude the enquiry and pass final orders, pursuant to the order of suspension, within two weeks from the date of receipt of explanation from the petitioner/appellant. Sri.V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/ appellant would strenuously contend that the order of suspension, when two conflicting analysis reports are available; one certifying the standards of the product and another finding variations, constitutes an unreasonable exercise of discretion in passing the order of suspension by the 1st respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge, that no case is made out for interference in the writ petition. We see no reason to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the 1st respondent in passing the order of suspension, on account of the report of A.P. Forensic Laboratories, Hyderabad finding variations. Since the learned single Judge has already directed expeditious delivery of a copy of the report of the A.P.Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad to the petitioner and permitting the petitioner to submit explanation within three days thereafter and further directed passing of final orders within two weeks, no case is made out for interference with such order. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. In the circumstances, however, no orders as to costs. Dt: 30-06-2011. ( G.RAGHURAM, J ) ( P.DURGA PRASAD, J ) TNB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.458 OF 2011 DATED: 30-06-2011.