THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17689 of 2007 Date:23.06.2011 Between: N.Swapna ..... Petitioner AND Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri Thoom Sriniva, standing counsel for Indian Oil Corporation Counsel for Respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 with regard to marker test conducted by it and collection of samples from the petitioner’s retail outlet as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for invalidation of test report dated 07.08.2007 from respondent No.1’s laboratory. On the interim application filed by the petitioner, this Court directed the respondents to take fresh samples from the petitioner’s retail outlet and send them for testing in the presence of the officials of respondent No.1 Corporation. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager of respondent No.1 Corporation, it is inter alia stated that a show-cause notice was issued on 01.08.2007 by respondent No.1 Corporation calling upon the petitioner to furnish an explanation, that even though this Court granted an interim direction, as referred to above, the TT retention samples were not available at the outlet at the time of inspection and were not handed over to the Inspecting Officials and that the belated presentation of the TT retention samples were not acceptable as the samples lose validity for representing the bulk product of HSD down loaded at the retail outlet. From the facts borne out by the record, it is evident that the proceedings before the competent authority of respondent No.1 Corporation are still pending. Sri T. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that no final order has been passed on the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, it is appropriate that the petitioner files her explanation to the show-cause notice by raising all legally permissible pleas therein including the necessity for sending fresh samples for analysis. Since it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has already submitted her explanation dated 02.08.2007, she is permitted to file an additional explanation, if any, within three weeks from today. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall thereafter consider the same, pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.22684 and 22685 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd June, 2011 GHN