IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5694 of 2004 Between: SK. Kamal, S/o. Hussain Saheb, R/o. Sunnampadu Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, G. Kondur Mandal, Krishna District. 3 The Director of Civil Supplies, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. .....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 any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring proceedings DCS Progs.No.E2/265/2003, dt. 19-11-2003 issued by respondent No.3 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, Unconstitutional in violation of principles of natural justice or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 5694 of 2004 03-02-2009 Oral Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The writ petition is against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 19-11-2003 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Clause 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (L & RS) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the 1980 Order’) assailing the order cancelling the petitioner’s license and directing forfeiture of the security deposit, passed by the 1st respondent dated 12-03-2003. The petitioner was an accredited kerosene hawker with license No. K.L. No. 4/94 for Sunnampadul village of G. Konduru mandal, Krishna district. The distribution point whereat the petitioner was pursuing his licensed business was inspected by the Special Deputy Tahasildar (Enforcement), Vijayawada, who furnished a report dated 13- 01-2003 on the basis of an inspection on 10-01-2003 that the petitioner has committed eight (8) species of transgression of the conditions of the license including (a) withholding 250 litres of kerosene from sale during the period 01-01-2003 to 10-01-2003; (b) collecting Rs.10-00 per litre instead of the stipulated Rs.9.50 per litre; (c) failing to submit stock and sales registers for December, 2002 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, G. Konduru; (d) failing to exhibit the stock/price list board at the sales point; (e) indulging in unauthorized storing and sale of PDS kerosene at Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, which was detected on 08-01- 2003; (f) failing to exhibit license at the business premises; (g) allowing one Shaik Kasim to distribute kerosene on his behalf without any prior permission from the concerned official; (h) from the records pertaining the month of December, 2002 seized at an unauthorized storing and sale point that the hawker was seen making false entries in sales register without issuing kerosene oil to the cardholders properly; and (i) that the hawker was distributing kerosene oil only 2 or 3 days in a month and failed to observe timings as fixed by the Government and thereby contravened several provisions of the 1980 Order. The Inspector of Police, Regional Vigilance and Enforcement, Vijayawada reported on 23-01-2003 that the records of the petitioner having been seized by the Enforcement team at an unauthorized storing and sale point of PDS Kerosene Oil at Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada and during the course of investigation, the hawker’s sale point was inspected and it was observed that the hawker was making false entries in his sales register without issuing kerosene oil to the cardholders properly and diverting the same to unauthorized sale point at Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada for pecuniary gains. Initially the license of the petitioner was suspended for a period of three months by an order dated 31-10-2003 of the 1st respondent, pending regular enquiry. A show cause notice was issued on 15-02-2003 to which petitioner submitted a written explanation on 27-02-2003. On a consideration of the material on record and the explanation of the petitioner set out in his representation dated 15-02-2003, the 1st respondent – primary authority – concluded that the petitioner had transgressed several provisions of the 1980 Order. The petitioner also furnished no explanation on the charge of withholding of 250 litres of kerosene oil from sale during 01-01-2003 to 10-01-2003, the first charge. He also failed to explain why he allowed Shaik Khasim to distribute kerosene oil on his behalf without prior permission from the competent authority. The primary authority also found sufficient material for the conclusion that the petitioner was vending kerosene to certain cardholders at higher prices than that fixed by the government. The petitioner also admitted in the written explanation that the excess kerosene available after sale is sold to the non-card holders, another violation of the 1980 Order. The petitioner also admitted that he failed to maintain records properly and thus admitted violation of Clause 12 (i)(ii), 13 and 20 of the 1980 Order as well as conditions No. 4,5,6,8,9,11 and 12 of the license issued to the petitioner. On a consideration of the gravity of the charges established against the petitioner on the basis of the material on record including implied admissions of the charges qua the silence in the petitioner’s representation, the primary authority concluded that the cancellation of the petitioner’s license was a penalty commensurate and proportionate to the misconduct alleged and established. Accordingly the order dated 12-03-2003, in exercise of the powers under Clause 28 (1) of the 1980 Order directed cancellation of the license of the petitioner and forfeiture of the security deposit. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent and by a reasoned order the 3rd respondent on 19-11-2003 rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the 1st respondent canceling the petitioner’s license and forfeiture of security deposit. Neither the primary order of the 3rd respondent nor the appellate order of the 1st respondent are seen to suffer from any illegality warranting judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 03-02-2009 Pvks