JUDGMENT ( 1. ) BY this petition the petitioner has called in question the action taken by the respondents and the order passed on the application of the petitioner rejecting her claim for sending the sample retained in the agency of the petitioner for retesting. Such an order has been issued on 26-4-2011. The relief claimed by the petitioner is to issue a direction to the respondents to retest the sample of the High Speed Diesel (hereinafter referred to as 'HSD') which was drawn on 12-3-2011, through any impartial laboratory other than belonging to the respondents and to furnish a report of the same. The petitioner has further claimed a relief to remove the seal put on the outlet of the petitioner and to start supply of the product to the petitioner without any interruption. ( 2. ) FACTS giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner was granted agency by the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). An inspection of the retail outlet of the petitioner was carried out on 12-3-2011 and the samples of Motor Spirit (hereinafter referred to as 'the MS') and HSD were drawn. It is alleged by the petitioner that six samples of MS and 3 samples of HSD were drawn. Out of these samples two samples of MS and one sample of HSD were handed over to the petitioner for keeping the same in the safe custody till further advice. The remaining samples were taken by the respondents authorities and the same were got tested. Since the test report given by the laboratory of the respondents was not satisfactory and it was contended that the samples have not met with the specification, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11-4-2011 vide annexure P/2. On receipt of this show cause notice and noting down the contents of the reports of test mentioned in the said show cause, the petitioner submitted an application immediately within the period of reply to the show cause on 16-4-2011 requesting the respondents authorities to get the resampling and retesting of the petroleum products stored in the outlet of the petitioner under the provisions of section 20 of the Petroleum Act, 1934. In the application a prayer was made in the alternative that in case such a retesting/ resampling was not permissible, the sample of the petroleum product kept in the custody of the petitioner be retested. ( 3. ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that under section 20 of the Petroleum Act, it was mandatory on the part of the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner but they have rejected the same by not giving any cogent reasons. It is simply said that since the provision of resampling under the provisions of section 20 of the Petroleum Act, 1934, is not applicable to the retail outlet dealers, therefore, such a prayer of the petitioner is not being accepted. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that such an act of the 'respondents is per se illegal and thus the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. ( 4. ) PER contra, by filing return the respondents have contended that since the provisions of section 20 of the Act are not attracted, such a prayer was rightly refused. It is further contended by the respondents that in the show cause notice reasons were assigned and thereafter action has already been taken against the petitioner. Since no reply was submitted by the petitioner, action has already been taken against the petitioner for cancellation of her dealership. It is contended that even under the provisions of the Order which are made, there is no prescription of resampling or retesting of the petroleum product. Therefore, such a prayer of the petitioner was rightly rejected. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions made in the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'), it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Court would be free to exercise the power only if any provision is made for resampling or retesting either in the act or under the Order. Therefore, it is contended that if there is no such prescription, on its own the Court would not be justified in directing retesting of the sample or resampling of the product. It is contended that such a prayer of the petitioner was rightly refused and the writ petition is thus liable to be dismissed. ( 5. Therefore, it is contended that if there is no such prescription, on its own the Court would not be justified in directing retesting of the sample or resampling of the product. It is contended that such a prayer of the petitioner was rightly refused and the writ petition is thus liable to be dismissed. ( 5. ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. ( 6. ) TRUE it is that provision is made under section 20 of the Act with respect to exercise of right to require retesting. For the purposes of understanding the provision, it is quoted thus :-20. Right to require re-test :- (1) The owner of any petroleum, or his agent, who is dissatisfied with the result of the test of the petroleum may, within seven days from the date on which he received intimation of the result of the test, apply to the officer empowered under section 14 to have fresh samples of the petroleum taken and tested. (2) On such application and on payment of the prescribed fee, fresh samples of the petroleum shall be taken in the presence of such owner or agent or person deputed by him, and shall be tested in the presence of such owner or agent or person deputed by him. (3) If, on such re-test, it appears that the original test was erroneous, the testing officer shall cancel the original certificate granted under sec.19, shall make out a fresh certificate, and shall furnish the owner of the petroleum, or his agent, with a certified copy thereof, free of charge, ( 7. ) THE word owner used in the provision aforesaid do not qualify that the owner means only the wholesale dealer. It is nowhere provided under the Act that the word owner used in the aforesaid section means only the owner of a wholesale depot and not a retailer. Though definition clause of the Act given in section 2 prescribe many definitions but the owner or dealer is not defined under the Act. Definition of dealer is given in clause 2(d) of the Order which reads as under :- "dealer" means a person duly appointed by an oil company to purchase, receive, store and sell motor spirit and high sped diesel oil whether or not in, conjunction with any other business and shall include his representatives, employees and agents; ( 8. Definition of dealer is given in clause 2(d) of the Order which reads as under :- "dealer" means a person duly appointed by an oil company to purchase, receive, store and sell motor spirit and high sped diesel oil whether or not in, conjunction with any other business and shall include his representatives, employees and agents; ( 8. ) A plain and simple reading of this will make it clear that dealer is a person duly appointed by an oil company to purchase, receive, store and sell motor spirit and high speed diesel but again it do not clarify that the retail dealers will not be a dealer within the meaning of the aforesaid definition. Therefore, to say that provisions of section 20 of the Act referred to hereinabove would be applicable only to the owner of the wholesale depots, as is indicated by the respondents in their reply to the application made by the petitioner, cannot be accepted. If such a restricted meaning was to be given to the word "dealer", it was open to the law making authority to define the word "dealer" in such a manner. Neither in the Act nor in the Order such a definition is restricted. Such a narrow interpretation of the word "dealer" by the respondents is, therefore, neither just nor proper. The refusal of the prayer of the petitioner is only on this count. ( 9. ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of M. Chakravarthi and another vs. State Represented by the Public Prosecutor, decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein dealing with the same circumstances, the Court has considered the aspect of keeping the sample with the dealer also. Undisputedly there is a provision made in the Order that while making an inspection, the samples of products are to be drawn from the outlets of the dealers. These are the provisions made in clause 8 of the Order which reads thus :- 8. Sampling of Product (1) The authorized officer under clause 7 shall draw the sample from the tank, nozzle, vehicle or receptacle, as the case may be, in clean aluminum containers to check whether density and other parameters of the product conform to the requirements of Bureau of Indian Standard specifications number IS 2796 and IS 1460 for motor spirit and high speed diesel respectively. Where samples are drawn from retail outlet, the relevant tank-truck sample retained by the dealer as per clause 3 (b) would also be collected for laboratory analysis. (2) The authorised officer shall take and seal six samples of 1 litre each of the motor spirit or three samples of 1 litre each of the high speed diesel. Two samples of motor spirit or one of high speed diesel would be given to the dealer or transporter or concerned person under acknowledgement with instruction to preserve the sample in his safe custody till the testing or investigations are completed. Two samples of Motor Spirit or one of High Speed Diesel shall be kept by the concerned off company or department and the remaining two samples of Motor Spirit or one of High Speed Diesel' would be used for laboratory analysis; (3) The sample label shall be jointly signed by the authorised officer who has drawn the sample, and the dealer or transporter or concerned person or his representative and the sample label shall contain information as regards the product, name of retail outlet, quantity of sample, date, name of the authorized officer, name of the dealer or transporter or concerned person or his representative; (4) The authorised officer shall forward the sample of the product taken within ten days to any of the laboratories mentioned in Schedule III or to any other such laboratory when it may be notified by the Government in the Official Gazette for this purpose, for analysing with a view to checking whether the density and other parameters of the product conform to the requirements of Bureau of Indian Standard specifications number IS 2796 and IS 1460 for motor spirit and high speed diesel respectively. (5) The laboratory mentioned in sub-clause (4) shall furnish the test report to the authorised officer within twenty days of receipt of sample at the laboratory. (6) The authorised officer shall communicate the test result to the dealer or transporter or concerned person and the oil company, as the case may be, within five days of receipt of test results from the laboratory for appropriate action. ( 10. ) IT is clear from the aforesaid provision that six samples are to be taken 1 It. each of MS and 3 samples of 1 It. each of HSD. ( 10. ) IT is clear from the aforesaid provision that six samples are to be taken 1 It. each of MS and 3 samples of 1 It. each of HSD. Two samples of MS and 1 of HSD would be given to the dealer or transporter or concerned person under acknowledgement with instructions to preserve the sample in his safe custody' till the testing or investigation are completed. Thus, the samples are to be given in the sealed conditions so as to avoid any tampering with the sample by the dealer. Such samples are given to the dealers only with an object to order retesting of the sample of the very same material of which the samples are drawn at the time of inspection. If a prayer for retesting of the sample kept in the custody of the dealer is made, it is obligatory on the part of the Corporation to grant such a request so as to indicate the fairness in action taken against the dealers. Thus, provisions are specifically made in the Order with the object aforesaid otherwise there was no question of giving the sample in custody of the dealer also. This being so if the alternative prayer was made by the petitioner for retesting of the sample which was kept in her custody, it was not open to the respondents to refuse such a permission or prayer. The petitioner by making such an application has shown her intention that she was not agreeing with the test report of the material collected from the outlet of the petitioner obtained by the respondents from the concerned laboratory an6, therefore, a justified prayer was made by her. The order passed by the respondents nowhere indicates that this particular prayer of the petitioner was also considered and rejected. Even if such a prayer is to be rejected, there must be vesy cogent and justified reasons. None is available in the order impugned. Therefore, submission of learned, counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted that there is no provision of retesting or resampling and the provision of section 20 of the Act are not applicable to the retail outlet dealers. ( 11. ) IN the considered opinion of this Court, such an approach of the respondents was totally unjustified and improper. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby quashed. ( 11. ) IN the considered opinion of this Court, such an approach of the respondents was totally unjustified and improper. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to sent the sample of the HSD kept in the custody of the petitioner for retesting in an appropriate laboratory and to obtain a report of the same within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. Since an interim order was already passed by this Court on 7-5-2011 to the effect that any action taken subsequent to the issuance of the show cause notice by the respondents, shall be subject to final outcome of the petition, if any order of cancellation of the dealership of the petitioner is passed, the same also stand quashed. ( 12. ) IN the result, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove but with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.