IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11949 of 2007(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DEEPA SAJEEV, PROPRIETRIX, SAI KRISHNA FUELS, IBP DEALER, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT: --------------- IBP CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, M.K.K.NAIR ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-25. ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, IBP.CO.LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 11949/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.2.07 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 16.2.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 27.2.07 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC:8366/07 DATED 15.3.07. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 16.3.07 SENT TO THE RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 11949 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a dealer in petroleum products under the respondent. By Ext.P1 the respondent directed the petitioner to show cause why penal action as per the Marking Discipline Guidelines, 2005, should not be taken against the petitioner on the ground that the MS sample taken from the petitioner's outlet did not meet the required standards on RON test carried out. Re-test was sanctioned by Ext.P3, but the same could not be conducted, since the test facility at the laboratory of the respondent was not functioning. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment of this Court, re-test of both samples in the possession of the company and the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.07. Both samples passed the test. Despite the same, the petitioner is not permitted to open the retail outlet is the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition and she seeks the following relief: “i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondent to resume the supply and permit sales in the retail outlet of the petitioner forthwith;” WPC : 11949/07 -:2:- 2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. At the time of admission, I had passed an interim order directing the respondents to resume the supply of petroleum products to the petitioner pending further orders. 3. In the absence of any counter affidavit filed by respondent, I must assume that the averments in the writ petition are correct. If they are correct, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to continue the supply of petroleum products to the petitioner provided, no violations of the guidelines are detected. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb