IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 13045 of 2007 Smt Manju Devi, wife of Late Satendra Kumar Singh, Proprietor of M/s Sahid Satendra Filling Station, resident of village - Narayanpur, P S - Narayanpur, District - Bhojpur - Petitioner Versus 1 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd through its Chairman and Managing Director having its registered office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai - 400 020 2 The General Manager (Eastern Zone), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, 6 Church Lane, Kolkata -700 001 3 The Sr Regional Manager (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna 4 Representative, M/s SGS India Pvt Ltd, Bharhara House, Patna - 800 004 - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the H P C L : Mr Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate *** 3 12.11.2008 The petitioner was operating a Hindustan Petroleum owned petrol pump in the district of Bhjojpur. An inspection was conducted on 27.05.2007 at the petrol pump by M/s SGS India Private Limited who are agents of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for verification of purity of petroleum products being sold at the petrol pumps. The report is contained in Annexure-2 which shows that so far as diesel is concerned, the nozzle sample failed the test. Contemporaneous sample was taken under sealed cover and were then tested in presence of the petitioner at Patna on 06.06.2007. Here again, the sample showed signs of adulteration and the report is Annexure-5 which is signed by the petitioner herself also. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the report bears an endorsement “slightest pink”. On strength of this, petitioner submits that either the sample had to be shown adulterated or 2 not adulterated. In other words, it should have been reported pink or not pink. In my view, that is immaterial. The main test report shows “pink” clearly with an endorsement “slightest pink”. The next submission of the petitioner is that though the contemporaneous tank lorry sample may clear the adulteration test if the earlier sample is also not tested. The results would not squarely hold the petitioner guilty. He submits that the tanks are not fully emptied when fresh stocks are received. There is always a carry over of old stocks. There are chances that the old stock may be contaminated but not the fresh stock but the result would be that the entire stock becomes contaminated. With reference to the supplementary affidavit, on behalf of petitioner, it is submitted that this position has been accepted by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation when they issued circular dated 18.02.2008 in which it has now been tested that two tank lorry samples would be tested, one a contemporaneous sample and the other the same pertaining to immediately preceding load. Petitioner submits that this was not done in her case. The answer is obvious. This circular was issued on the 18th of February 2008 but the testing at petitioner’s premises was done over six months before. However, considering the stringent and hard consequences that follow from an alleged adulteration, all this Court can do is to direct the Oil Company to get tank lorry sample of the immediate preceding load if available in proper condition to be tested and then take a fresh decision in the matter. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed 3 of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)