1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1343/2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- D.D. SINHA & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 10.01.2007 Heard Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Counsel for the respondents. This review petition is directed against the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, whereby W.P. No.6110/2006 came to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the Division Bench did not take into consideration the following two grounds; (1) that one of the samples of Motor Spirit which was retained with the petitioner and was forwarded for analysis to the laboratory was found consistent with RON test. 2 (2) that the two samples of the Motor Spirit which were forwarded to the laboratory for analysis, was not approved Government laboratory as enlisted in Schedule-III of the Government Order dated 30.3.2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that since the above referred two grounds were not considered by the Division Bench of this Court, the order impugned needs to be reviewed. Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned order and contended that these two grounds were never canvassed before the Division Bench. Even otherwise the two samples which were collected and forwarded for analysis to the laboratory failed to meet the required specifications with respect to RON test and therefore even on this count the order impugned is just and proper and is sustainable in law. Learned Counsel for the respondents further states that the samples which were forwarded to the laboratory concerned was approved laboratory and also is enlisted in Schedule-III i.e. Indian Oil Corporation, Nishatpura Laboratory, Diwanganj Road, Nishatpura, Bhopal. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. In the instant 3 case, the laboratory who has analyzed the samples appears to be approved laboratory enlisted in the Schedule and found that the samples failed to meet the required specifications with respect to RON test, and therefore no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssw