Judgment 1. The petitioner has a retail outlet for petroleum products HSD and Turbo (High Grade HSD) which were tested. Some samples were found adulterated. From the same set of samples, test was again done and found adulterated. It was submitted that as per the marketing guideline, the authorities ought to have tested the tank lorry sample and compared the test to the respective tank sample. In this way, the authorities should have tested four samples; two of tank lorry and two of tank. This was not done and there was apparent confusion when first sampling was done for the same product as is apparent from Annexure-5, at first reported indicative and then positive. It is submitted that this creates a doubt and considering the serious nature of repercussion, leading to cancellation of dealership itself, the authorities may be well advised to retest the available products. It is tainted that the tanks have been sealed by the authorities pursuant to the test aforesaid. Therefore, fresh samples can always be drawn. This would have to be compared with tank lorry samples which are still retained at the R.O. For the present, without going into the merits, I feel ends of justice could meet if fresh distinguish is done in presence of the petitioner of tank lorry samples and tank samples. This would, however, subject to the authorities of Corporation finding that the samples have been retained in good conditions. 2. In that view of the matter, they would submit a report to this court within a period of one month from today. 3. A copy of the said report should also be furnished to the petitioner who could be present at the time of sampling. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Rajeev Prakash, learned counsel for the Petroleum Company. 4. Let this case be listed under the heading for admission retaining its position after one month.