IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.297 of 2008 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN.LTD.&ORS Versus OM PRAKASH PODDAR ----------- For the appellants : M/s.Madhuresh Prasad & Ravi Verma, Advocates. For the respondent :M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate, Amresh Kr. Sinha and Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocates. -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---- Dated, the 3rd July, 2008. We heard the counsel for the appellants. 2. It is not in dispute that on 26th October, 2006, during inspection at M/s Hindustan Automobiles, Bodhgaya, six samples of motor spirit of 1 litre each were drawn from MS Tank of the retail outlet as provided in clause 2.4.1 of the Guidelines,2005. It is also not in dispute that out of those samples; two samples were sent to the marketing laboratory, Patna; two samples were given to the dealer and two samples were retained at the territory office of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (appellants). The counsel for the appellants also admitted that the samples sent to the laboratory were analysed and in the report RON was found to be 79. He also did not - 2 - dispute that after the show cause notice was given to the dealer, he desired re-analysis of the samples; the samples retained by the dealer was sent to the laboratory and in that report RON was found to be 91. In the backdrop of these facts, particularly that one of the samples sent to laboratory RON was found to be 91 (minimum is 88), the Single Judge cannot be said to have committed any error in quashing the action of the appellants in terminating the dealership licence. 3. If the allegation of the appellants is that the dealer tampered with the samples retained by him, the course open to the Corporation was to lodge a first information report for this criminal act and take that alleged criminal act to its logical conclusion which was never done. 4. Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil