IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.84 of 2009 1. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director having its registered office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. 2. The General Manager(Eastern Zone), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 6 Church Lane, Kolkata-700001. 3. The Sr. Regional Manager(Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 6th Floor, Lok Narayan Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna. ……..Petitioners Versus 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. Respondent. ----------- 03. 29.04.2009 The Review petitioners were Respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 13045 of 2007 which was disposed of by this Court on judgment and order dated 12.11.2008. Writ petitioner’s retail petroleum dealership was inspected by M/s SGS enterprises, agent of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for adulteration in the Marker Test. The HSD (High Speed Diesel) sample failed the test. Contemporaneous sample was retested in presence of the petitioner and the officials of the Corporation and it was recorded that the Marker Test showed “Slightest Pink”. Considering these things, the Court directed the Corporation to get tank lorry sample of earlier consignment also tested for reasons given in the order. By this Review Application, it is stated that there can not be a Marker Test now of contemporaneous sample of 2 earlier tank lorry because Marker Test has now been discontinued and the services of the SGS enterprises discontinued with effect from 01.01.2009. The sample of earlier Tank Lorry load will also not serve any useful purpose because the samples are of May, 2007 almost two years back. Thus appropriate orders are sought for from this Court. In my view, this Court can not pass any order in this review jurisdiction. However, it can only observe that if the Corporation can not conduct proper sampling then only the benefit of doubt must come in favour of the dealer because the consequences are grave. If the dealer could not be successfully pinned down on charge of adulteration then giving the benefit of doubt, the Corporation may restore the dealership, keeping the conduct of the dealer under watch. This is all that can now be done, this application is accordingly disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)