(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2191 OF 2011 M/s. Kishorilal Babulal Petroleum Dealer, A partnership firm through its partner, Damodar s/o. Mathuraprasad Agrawal, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department of Civil Supplies, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Additional Collector, Latur. 3. District Supply Officer, Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6TH APRIL 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Senior Adv. Mr. V.J. Dixit, with Adv. Mr. S.V. Natu, for the petitioner, and learned Addl. G.P. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent. 3. By the impugned communication dated 7-3-2011, Additional Collector, Latur, has rejected representation of the petitioner to permit him to open his petrol pump sealed by the joint inspecting squad on 16-2-2011 and delivered in his custody. 4. One of the contentions of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dixit is, the permission to re-start petrol pump is rejected as report of Government Laboratory on quality of petrol sold is still not received. He relies upon provisions of Rule 8, Sub-Rule 5 of the Motor Spirit And High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution And Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 (For (3) short, "2005 Order") with Schedule III as appended thereto, to urge that all laboratories of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. are recognized for the purposes of test report. He, therefore, relies upon test report dated 28-2-2011 to argue that as that test report does not show any adulteration or similar malpractices, petitioner should be permitted to re-start the sale. 5. Learned Addl. G.P. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, for the respondents, is opposing the request. According to him, the report has to come from Government Laboratory and the time period of 20 days for said purpose prescribed in Rule 8(5) of the above mentioned 2005 Order is not mandatory. 6. I do not find it necessary to go into all these aspects. Prima facie it is seen that all laboratories, including laboratory of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is recognized for the purpose of conducting tests. Accordingly, the petitioner is producing a test certificate dated 28-2-2011. The said certificate, therefore, needs to be looked into by the Collector only in the light of above provisions of Rule 8 of 2005 Order. If the office of Collector is satisfied with the said report of Quality Control Department / Laboratory, the Collector can pass further appropriate orders and permit the petitioner to re-start the sale of petroleum products. Only for the said purpose, impugned order (4) will have to be set aside. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 7-3-2011, passed by respondent no.2, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no.2 / Additional Collector, Latur, for a fresh decision. Respondent no.2 shall look into the nature of controversy and pass fresh orders in the matter, as early as possible and in any case by 19th April 2011. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. 9. Authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned Addl. G.P. for necessary compliance. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2191