THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4018 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Distributor of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and established a retail outlet at Vetlapalem, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District. On 29.01.2010, the Officials of the Corporation inspected the Petroleum Outlet and have drawn the samples of Motor Spirit (M.S.) and H.S.D. from the vessels. As required under the relevant regulations, samples of M.S. product in six containers and H.S.D. in three containers were sealed as per the specifications. One set of samples were left with the petitioner and two were taken by the Officials. One of the samples kept with the Corporation was sent for analysis to Regional Laboratory, Korukkupet, Chennai. One factor, namely Research Octane Number (R.O.N.) of the M.S. did not meet the specifications. To be precise, as against the minimum of 88, the sample had 81.4 as its R.O.N. On that basis, the petitioner was issued proceedings, dated 17.02.2010 requiring it to stop the sales. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Raghunandan, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The allegation against the petitioner was that the motor spirit being sold by it did not meet with the specifications. This is made on the basis of analysis undertaken by the Laboratory, of the sample sent by the respondent. After hearing the matter at length, this Court passed an order, dated 24.02.2010, directing that the sample that was left with the petitioner be sent for analysis to the same Laboratory and the result thereof be placed before this Court. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has placed before this Court, a set of papers, including an inter-office memo, dated 26.02.2010, and the result of the analysis. It emerges that there is a variation of specifications between the sample retained by the Field Officer on the one hand, and the sample left with the Dealer on the other. While the former did not accord with the specifications, the latter did. The report discloses that the former sample had R.O.N. at 81.4, whereas the latter at 90.2. It must be said to the credit of the Laboratory as well as the Corporation that they have maintained such transparent and fair procedure. Once it is clear that the sample left with the petitioner accorded with the specifications, it cannot be required to stop the sales. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.03.2010. kdl