THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27172 OF 1999 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation and it established a retail petroleum outlet at Ameerpet. Samples of motor spirit (petrol) were drawn on 7.10.1999. After subjecting the samples to test in the laboratories, the Indian Oil Corporation, the first respondent herein, issued show cause notice dated 26.10.1999 informing the petitioner that the samples did not meet the specifications and requiring it to explain as to why necessary action should not be taken. The petitioner submitted its explanation on 3.11.1999. It was stated that the nature of deviations are not mentioned and that the official who drew the samples did not sign in the register maintained by it. The petitioner further stated that another sample is left with it and the same may be subjected to test. A final order was passed by the respondents on 28.12.1999 pointing out that the sample did not accord with the specifications of final boiling point. Penalty of closure of outlet for a period of one month was imposed. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the show cause notice was silent as to the nature of violation on the part of the petitioner or the defect of the sample and that even after pointing out the same, the respondent proceeded to pass final order indicating an altogether different reason. It is also stated that on 28.12.1999 itself entries were made in the relevant forms disclosing that the sample drawn on 7.10.1999 was found to be proper. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that as the tests conducted in the mobile laboratories are not conclusive and final analysis was made in the Company’s laboratory. According to them the petitioner cannot avoid its liability having indulged in tinkering with the quality of the product. Heard Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Raghunandan, learned counsel for the respondents. There is no dispute that the samples were drawn from the outlet of the petitioner on 7.10.1999. The allegation of the petitioner that the official, who drew the sample, did not sign in the register, is not denied. That however, makes hardly any difference. The show cause notice dated 26.10.1999 is very brief and it only mentioned that the sample did not meet with the specifications. Different things would have ensued had the respondent enclosed a copy of the report of analysis. Every thing was left for the petitioner to guess. In its explanation, the petitioner made out a grievance as to the vagueness in the matter. At least then, the respondent ought to have informed the petitioner, the nature of deviations vis-à-vis the specifications. Instead of doing so, straightaway passed the impugned order, wherein for the first time it was mentioned that the sample did not meet the specification of final boiling point. Assuming that the procedure adopted by the respondents is correct in all aspects, the very purpose of leaving a sample with the petitioner is to subject the same to analysis, in the event of the dealer expressing its doubt about the out come of the analysis of the sample. Even this step was not taken and the impugned order was passed almost in a one-sided manner. Another aspect, which has a direct bearing on the matter, is that on 28.12.1999 the summary of the previous inspection of the outlet was prepared and the fact that a sample was drawn on 7.10.1999 was reaffirmed. The result of analysis was shown as “passed”. Therefore, there is a clear contradiction as to the result of the analysis of the sample drawn on 7.10.1999. The right of the petitioner to run the outlet cannot be interfered with, on the strength of such equivocal and self-contradictory material. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 10th December, 2008 Js.