IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6476 of 2008(U) ------------------------- 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) SRI.ARUN THOMAS 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 E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC R2 .BY.P.PARAMEWARAN, A.G.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.6476 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was running a retail outlet for vending petroleum products of the 1st respondent Corporation. Samples taken from his outlet did not pass the quality test conducted by the 1st respondent. The petitioner submits that out of nine tests, only in one sample taken from the petitioner's outlet failed. That could be because of some fault on the part of the lab of the 1st respondent where the test has been conducted. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct test of another sample taken from the petitioner's outlet in another lab belonging to the 1st respondent Corporation itself. However, the 1st respondent is not inclined to do so and is proceeding to conduct the test in the same lab is the grievance of the petitioner. The test is to be conducted tomorrow and that is why the petitioner has moved this writ petition urgently today. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation submits that as per the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, this is not possible. According to him, for very valid reasons the second test has to be conducted in the w.p.c.6476/08 2 same lab in which the earlier test was conducted because it would not be possible to compare results of two tests conducted in two different laboratories. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Clause 2.5.D of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines reads thus: “D) In case of sample failure, in the event of request for testing by the dealer, the same to be considered on merits by the State office/Regional /Zonal General Manager of the concerned Oil Company. If approved by GM, the sample of retail outlet retained by the dealer along with the counter sample retained with the Field Officer/Oil Company are to be tested as per the guidelines, preferably in presence of the Field Officer, RO dealer/representative & representative of QC Dept., of the Oil Co. after due verification of the samples. All the 3 samples should be tested only in the same lab, and if possible by the same person to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. The expenditure incurred for such testing should be recovered from the dealer. The decision of the GM, which would be based on the test results of all the 3 samples would be decisive and binding on all.” (underlying supplied) In view of the specific provision in the Guidelines, which is binding on the petitioner, I do not think that his request can be countenanced. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.6476/08 3