IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 13446 of 2003 BETWEEN: S.A. Rasheed Trading under the name and style of M/s. Rafee Oil Co. Wholesale & Kerosene Dealer, Mylavaram, Krishna District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Civil Supplies Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Krishna at Machlipatnam. Krishna District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mylavaram, Krishna District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or direction, declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing Proceedings.Rc.A1/7/2002 dated 09.01.2003. as confirmed by the 1st respondent through the Procdgs.No. E2/90/2003 dated 14.06.2003 as illegal and ultravires to the provisions to Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the Joint Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam, in Rc.A1/7/2002 dated 09.01.2003 in canceling the licence given to him under the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the kerosene dealership granted to the petitioner was renewed from time to time up to 31.12.2003. While so, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.10.2002 calling upon him to show cause a to why his licence shall not be suspended on the ground that he has not supplied the kerosene oil to the fair price shop dealers within the stipulated time and that previously he was imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- on the report of the fair price shop dealers. Petitioner gave an explanation stating that the delay in distributing the kerosene to the fair price shop dealers cannot be attributable to him as the fair price shop dealers alone are responsible for the delay in lifting kerosene oil. He further stated that the delay in non-lifting kerosene during the month of October 2002 occurred as he had performed the marriage of his sister and that he being a physically handicapped person he had to depend entirely on his clerk in the distribution of kerosene. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that contrary to the show cause notice the Joint Collector cancelled the authorization of the petitioner not only on the ground of delay in supplying the kerosene but also on the ground that he diverted about 30,000 liters of kerosene as per his oral confession, which was not at all a charge framed in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector dated 09.01.2003 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director of Civil Supplies and the same was also dismissed by order dated 14.06.2003. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it may not be just and proper to consider the rival contentions as the basis for issuing the show cause notice was only with regard to the delay in supplying the kerosene oil but the diversion of 30,000 liters of kerosene is not at all a charge or allegation in the show cause notice. Therefore, the order of the Joint Collector is not in conformity with the show cause notice and had there been any further charges the Joint Collector ought to have issued a further show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation. For the mere delay in supplying the kerosene, the authorities might not have taken the extreme step of canceling the licence of the petitioner but they could have imposed a penalty. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside remitting the matter to the original authority i.e. the Joint Collector so as to enable him to issue a fresh show cause notice indicating the relevant charges and take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 1, 2008 DSK