Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petitioner-M/s. Ramdev Petroleum through its proprietor-dealer Shri Kanubhai Popatbhai Panchal is before this Court. This relief sought for is that the impugned order dated 22.05.2006 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent be quashed and set aside and respondent be directed to restore the supply of all products of Indian Oil Corporation and permit the petitioner to sell the same. 2 Facts leading to the present petition are that on 04.01.2006, the retail outlet of the petitioner was inspected by the inspecting team and has drawn the sample of Motor Spirit (Extra Premium). The sample collected on 04.01.2006 was sent for the laboratory test and the result thereof was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 10.05.2006, intimating the petitioner that in the laboratory test, the sample of Motor Spirits (M.S.) drawn from the retail outlet was found to be failing to meet specifications with respect to Research Octane Number (R.O.N.). In the said letter, details are set out to the effect that the requirement was minimum 91 whereas, the sample contains only 89.4. The petitioner was called upon to submit his written explanation on the above subject. By order dated 22.05.2006, which was served to the petitioner on the same day, the sales and supplies of all products from the retail outlet of the petitioner were suspended. 3. Mr. Prakash K. Jani, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondent is vitiated on more than one ground. The learned Advocate submitted that there are guidelines laid down by the respondent which are titled as, “Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005”, (Annexure-M) to this petition wherein, guideline 2 deals with, ‘Industry Guidelines for Sample collection and testing-3-tier sampling system’. 4. As in the present case, the sample was taken from the retail outlet of the petitioner, guideline 2.4.1 pertaining to M.S. is relevant. It provides for, the procedure to be followed. As there is no allegation to the effect that the said procedure was not followed, the same is not required to be referred to in detail. What is important in view of the allegation made in the petition, is Guideline 2.10. It provides for, ‘Sample Testing and Results’. The relevant part of which reads as under:— “............................................... All samples should reach the labs preferably within 10 days from the date of drawal and lab should test the samples preferably within the next 20 days. What is important in view of the allegation made in the petition, is Guideline 2.10. It provides for, ‘Sample Testing and Results’. The relevant part of which reads as under:— “............................................... All samples should reach the labs preferably within 10 days from the date of drawal and lab should test the samples preferably within the next 20 days. Results are to be communicated to the dealer by the concerned Oil Company preferably within the next 5 days from receipt of test reports. While in general, above procedure should be strictly followed and the time frame as stipulated above to be adhered to, however during special drives, in view of the large number of samples, the labs may accept the samples upto 15 days after drawal and the testing should be completed preferably within 30 days of the receipt of the sample. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in the present case, the sample was drawn on 04.01.2006. It is borne out from the report which is annexed to letter dated 10.05.2006 (Annexure-G) that the sample was received in the laboratory on 14.01.2006. It is also borne out from the report that the sample was tested by the laboratory on the same day, i.e., 14.01.2006 and the report was ready on that day itself. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that thereafter, the report, which ought to have been communicated to the petitioner within next 5 days, was communicated only by communication dated 10.05.2006, which is beyond the prescribed period of 5 days. The learned Advocate for the petitioner did not point out that this late communication caused any particular prejudice as the same is neither spelt out in the petition nor in the arguments. 6. From Guideline 2.10, first thing which could be noted is, it is ‘directory’ in nature and not ‘mandatory’. Only because the word, ‘should’ is used, it does not give the ‘mandatory’ character to this guideline. No doubt it is mentioned in the said guideline that, ‘All samples should reach’, but that does not render the guideline ‘mandatory’. The said guideline also provides that, ‘lab should test the samples’, this also does not make it ‘mandatory’ (Emphasis supplied). This can be inferred from the language used thereafter. No doubt it is mentioned in the said guideline that, ‘All samples should reach’, but that does not render the guideline ‘mandatory’. The said guideline also provides that, ‘lab should test the samples’, this also does not make it ‘mandatory’ (Emphasis supplied). This can be inferred from the language used thereafter. The guideline reads “Samples should reach the labs preferably within 10 days.....” That means, with a definite purpose in mind, the time limit is prescribed. (Emphasis supplied). It is not difficult for the Court to visualize the purpose for which the aforesaid time limit is prescribed. A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that if a person is unscrupulous one and when samples are taken from his business place, he can get delay caused in sending of the samples to the laboratory. After getting maximum possible delay caused, he will then get caused delay at the second stage, i.e., getting the samples tested at the laboratory. The third stage where further delay can be caused is, ‘communication of the test report’. To avoid all this, time limit is prescribed in the guideline for handling of the sample/s. It is not the case and it cannot be the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid time frame is prescribed because the product in question is ‘perishable’. Even in the case of the ‘perishable’ product, the care is taken by providing for adding of ‘preservative’. It cannot be argued and even if argued, it cannot be accepted that a petroleum product is such which if not stored properly, will get deteriorated on coming into contact with the atmospheric factors like, ‘air’, ‘water vapour’ etc. 7. In the present case, it is also not the case of the petitioner that the sample was not properly taken; that the container used for taking sample was not proper and that it did not reach to the laboratory in proper condition. What is alleged in the present case is only that its ‘report was communicated late’ to the petitioner. 8. It is a settled position of law that when a person complains about a breach of a particular guideline, unless the guideline is ‘mandatory’ in character, the person complaining has to satisfy the Court that the ‘breach’ has caused ‘prejudice’ is caused to the person concerned. 8. It is a settled position of law that when a person complains about a breach of a particular guideline, unless the guideline is ‘mandatory’ in character, the person complaining has to satisfy the Court that the ‘breach’ has caused ‘prejudice’ is caused to the person concerned. In the present case, there is neither such averment made in the petition nor it is contended while arguing the matter. 9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner during his course of arguments submitted that by this ‘late communication’ of the report, the petitioner lost his ‘right to make representation’ and also ‘an opportunity to get his sample tested’. The submission is not found acceptable for the reasons, guideline 2.9.2 (b) provides, ‘The dealer, from whom the sample is drawn by the representative of the Oil Company for testing should retain his sample till such time the testing and subsequent procedure are completed’. (Emphasis supplied). As required under this guideline, even as on date, the petitioner is under an obligation to be in possession of his sample, which for the obvious reasons, the petitioner has not chosen to send for testing... In view of that, the petitioner cannot be heard complaining that his right to make representation or getting his sample tested, is taken away. 10. The learned Advocate for the petitioner next complained that the order is vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that the petitioner was communicated by letter dated 10.05.2006 the result of the testing report. The last paragraph reads as under:— “You are advised to submit your written explanation on the above subject failure, so as to reach us within 7 days of receipt of this letter, failing which necessary action as deemed fit shall be taken to safeguard our interest.” The case of the petitioner is that this letter was posted by the respondent on 12.05.2006 which reached to the Siddhpur Post Office on 15.05.2006 and it was received by the petitioner on 17.05.2006. The petitioner should have been granted 7 clear days from the date of receipt of this letter. That will bring the doomsday to be 24.05.2006 whereas, the order under challenge is passed on 22.05.2006. This is in violation of the time limit prescribed by the respondents. 11. It is true that the petitioner was given time to make a representation of submit a written explanation. That will bring the doomsday to be 24.05.2006 whereas, the order under challenge is passed on 22.05.2006. This is in violation of the time limit prescribed by the respondents. 11. It is true that the petitioner was given time to make a representation of submit a written explanation. But then the same was not ‘mandatory’ to be observed by ‘minute to minute’. It is on record that even after having received the communication on 17.05.2006, the petitioner did not make any representation until 25.05.2006. If the petitioner was really keen on making a representation, he could have done so and that could have reached to the authority before 22.05.2006. The petitioner made his representation/written explanation only on 25.05.2006 which was not within the time prescribed. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice. 12. The learned Advocate for the petitioner next submitted that the sample failed by a marginal difference. He submitted that it is mentioned in communication dated 10.05.2006 that, required index of RON is 91 whereas, in the sample, it was found to be 89.4. Thus, there was shortfall of 1.6. The question is not as to what is the shortfall. The question is whether the sample has ‘passed’ or ‘failed’. Once the sample is not found up to the mark, it fails. If this agreement is accepted then there is no end to it. The sample which failed by 1.6, if to be condoned then why not the one failing by 1.8, 2, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6 and so on. There cannot be an end to this and, therefore, submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The standard is prescribed by the authority and according to that, the product must contain RON at the level of 91. There being no provision for plus (+), minus (-) variation. Once the sample is not found to have 91 RON, the sample fails. In the present case also, as the sample has failed, the petitioner must take the consequences thereof. 13. Lastly, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation in any of the communication that it was the petitioner who adulterated the product. He submitted that in absence of such allegation against the petitioner, to suspend the licence and deprive the petitioner of his livelihood is uncalled for. 14. 13. Lastly, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation in any of the communication that it was the petitioner who adulterated the product. He submitted that in absence of such allegation against the petitioner, to suspend the licence and deprive the petitioner of his livelihood is uncalled for. 14. The learned Advocate is not right in making this submission. In fact, Guideline 2 provides for ‘3-Tier sampling system’. Samples are to be drawn at ‘supply locations’, at the time of delivery of the ‘product from the tank/lorry. Besides, when a product is delivered to a dealer like the petitioner, the dealer, under Guideline 2.3., is supposed to draw a sample. Guideline 2.3 provides for “Drawal of samples by Dealer/his representative. If at all the petitioner wanted to raise this contention then that can be done only after getting his sample tested, which he is supposed to collect/draw at the time of receipt of the product through tank/lorry. The petitioner has not opted for the same then he has to thank himself. In fact, this provision is made to trace the product being adulterated during transit, i.e., between the ‘supply location’ and its delivery to the dealer. This can be taken care by drawing sample by the dealer on receipt of tank/lorry. In the present case, it is not on record as to whether the petitioner had drawn a sample or not. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that he requested the authority to test the sample drawn by him or his representative at the time of receipt of tank/lorry and that is denied by the respondent. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition fails and it is dismissed. * * * * *