IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11521 of 2007 Between: S.V. Ramana Rao, S/o. Lakshmaiah, Kerosene Oil Hawker, Bandarugudem -II, Manguru (M), Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 the Joint collector, Civil Supplies, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 The Tahsildar, Manuguru Mandal,Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropirate writ, aorder or direction more particuarlly one in the natureof writof Mandmaus to declare the impugned proceeding sof the 1st respondent bearing Rc.No.D/100/07, dt. 04.05.2007 as contrary to the provisionsof the A.P. Petroleum Products ( Licensing and regulation of Supplies) Order 1980 and also agaisnt the principles of the natural Justice and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11521 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is a kerosene oil hawker who obtained a license under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the 1980 Order’). By the impugned order of the first respondent dated 04-05-2007 the license has been suspended pending enquiry for alleged contravention of Clause 12 (1)(ii) of the 1980 Order and violation of Condition 9 of the Form BB license. The order is challenged on the ground that the petitioner has not indulged in the contraventions alleged. That is not an issue which can be gone into in this writ petition which is directed against an order of suspension pending enquiry. The other contention is that the enquiry is a condition precedent to a valid order of suspension, under Clause 28 (1) of the 1980 Order. This contention is without merit. The impugned order clearly discloses that in contemplation of regular enquiry, the order of suspension came to be passed. A learned Division Bench of this Court in GUMMADISETTI v. JOINT COLLECTOR, KHAMMAM1 had held the view that an inquiry or even a show cause notice is not a condition precedent for an order of suspension pending enquiry under Clause 28 (1) of the 1980 Order, provided an enquiry is contemplated and initiated simultaneously or expeditiously. In the light of the above declaration of law, there are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHUAM, J Dated: 10-07-2008 Pvks/* 1 2004 (1) ALD 535 (D.B.)