THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :30184 of 2010 Date: 3.12.2010 Between: M/s. Sri Siva Sakthi Gas Agencies ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Kurnool and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P. Veera Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : A.G.P. for Civil Supplies Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Thoom Srinivas The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :30184 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 13.11.2010 of respondent No.1. I have herd Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner is a distributor of L.P.G. Gas of respondent No.3- Corporation. It holds a lincence in Form-B issued by respondent No.1 under the provisions of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing & Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short ‘1980 Order’). Following inspection of the business premises of the petitioner by the officials of Civil Supplies Department and report dated 9.11.2010 sent by Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, respondent No.1 passed order dated 13.11.2010 suspending the petitioner’s Form-B Licence, pending action under Clause 28(1) of the 1980 Order. As a sequel to suspension, alternative arrangements were made by entrusting the distributorship to another dealer. In his affidavit, the Proprietor of the petitioner has made allegations suggesting that the impugned order is passed at the behest of the local Minister. I have perused the impugned order, which contained the alleged irregularities based on which the petitioner’s ‘B’ Form licence has been suspended. Under Clause 28(2) of the 1980 Order, respondent No.1 is competent to suspend “B” Form license, pending action under Clause 28(1). In the face of the serious allegations attributed to the petitioner, and in view of the initiation of enquiry by respondent No.1, it is not appropriate for this Court to render conclusive findings on various allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. Therefore, while refraining from going into various pleas raised by the petitioner on merits, I find it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry and pass a final order under Clause 28(1) of the 1980 Order, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass final order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, W.P.M.P. No.38444 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 3rd December, 2010 Note: Furnish c.c. in one week. B/o pnb