only in Ext.P8, the Covid-19 test of Syam Essar is shown as positive. Ext.P6 test was conducted on 09.03.2021 and Ext.P8 was conducted on 08.03.2021. Even in Ext.P8 itself, Clause (3) in the note says that a positive test result is only tentative, and will be reconfirmed by retesting. That is why the patient approached the petitioner lab and the petitioner lab conducted test and issued Ext.P6. Moreover, the patient went to Karnataka and from there also he conducted RTPCR test, of course it was on 12.03.2021. On that time also, the patient was tested negative. In such circumstances, the 2nd respondent erred in issuing Ext.P7 directing the petitioner to stop functioning of the lab itself even without giving an opportunity of hearing. Moreover as evident by Ext.P13, the petitioner lab already submitted application for permission to perform Covid related tests. Once such applications are received, the approval is only a formality as per Annexure R2(b) Government Order. But, according to me, Ext.P7 is to be quashed because that order is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Moreover, in the light of Exts.P9 and P10, this Court is of the view that there is no serious latches on the part of the petitioner. For that reason
