IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 568 of 2008()
1. P.K.GOPI, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
... Respondent
2. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :10/03/2008
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J. & K.M.Joseph, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.A.No.568 of 2008
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 10th day of March, 2008
JUDGMENT
K.M.Joseph,J.
The writ petitioner is the appellant. He approached this Court
seeking to quash Exhibit P10 to the extent it rejects the request of the appellant
to have the second test conducted at KRL Lab.
2. The appellant is running a retail outlet for vending petroleum
products of the first respondent-Indian Oil Corporation. Samples taken from the
outlet of the appellant did not pass the quality test conducted by the 1st
respondent. According to the appellant, out of the nine tests, only in one
sample taken from the appellant’s outlet failed. Therefore, the appellant sought
a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct another test in another Lab, namely
KRL Lab. The same was declined by the first respondent. That is how the writ
petition came to be filed.
3. The learned Single Judge took note of Clause 2.5.D of the
Marketing Discipline Guidelines and took the view that the samples are to be
tested only in the same lab. Finding that the action of the first
respondent-Corporation was in terms of the guidelines, the writ petition came to
be rejected.
4. We heard Sri.George Thomas Mevada, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent-Corporation.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first
respondent-Corporation points out that the first respondent is amenable to test
W.A.No.568 of 2008 – 2 –
the sample in IOC Lab or BPC Lab at Irumpanam. The learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that the appellant is amenable to have the sample tested
at BPC Lab at Irumpanam.
6. In the light of these developments, the Writ Appeal is disposed of
as follows:
The sample taken from the appellant shall be tested in BPC Lab at
Irumpanam, as proposed in Exhibit P10.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
K.M.Joseph
vku/- Judge