THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.26326 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is having a valid licence to distribute HPC Gas Cylinders, and the same is valid up to 31.12.2011. The second respondent inspected the petitioner’s business premises on 25.11.2009, and as he found some irregularities, he submitted a report to the Joint Collector, Krishna District, who in turn suspended the licence of the petitioner through proceedings dated 30.11.2009. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Clause 28 of A.P. Petroleum Products (Licencing etc.,) Order 1980 (for short ‘the Control Order) and submits that before passing the order of suspension, the authority is duty bound to issue show cause notice, and as the same is not done in the case on hand, the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. In this context, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in Narasimha Oil Supplies, IOC, Nidadavolu, West Godavari District v. Joint Collector, West Godavari[1]. In my considered view, the said contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. There are two types of punishments, i.e., by way of interim measure and by way of substantive measure. If the authority wants to suspend the licence for a limited period by way of substantive punishment, then a show cause notice, explanation and passing of order of suspension are required. However, when it is by way of interim measure, there is no need for the authority to issue any show cause notice. In this context it may be apt to refer to Clause 28 of the Control Order. Clause-28 – Contravention of conditions of licence, registration/certificate/supply card/provision of this Order:- 1) No holder of a licence or registration certificate or supply card issued under this order or his agent or servant or any other person, acting on his behalf shall contravene, attempt or abet in contravention of any of the provisions of this order or any of the conditions of the licence, registration certificate or any directions issued thereunder, if any, such holder or his agent or the servant or any person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the said terms and conditions, may be cancelled or suspended for such period as may be specified by an order in writing by the licencing authority. Provided that no order shall be made under this clause, unless the licensee or the holder of registration certificate has been given a reasonable opportunity for representing his case in writing and also having heard in person against the proposed cancellation. 2. Pending action as in sub-clause (1) above, the licencing authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, order or interim suspension of the llicence, registration certificate or supply card. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. This Court is of the view that when a punishment is substantive, then only show cause notice etc., would come into picture. When it is by way of an interim measure, there is no need to issue any show cause notice. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 28 of the Control Order, referred to above, also says the same thing. The words used in that Clause are “pending action as in sub-clause (1) above, the licencing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing, order interim suspension of the licence”. In the light of the said wordings, this Court looks into the impugned order. The Joint Collector had given a detailed explanation for his conclusion to suspend the licence of the petitioner, which reads under– “Considering the gravity of the irregularities committed and was not maintaining the accounts properly and indulged in storage of the Cylinders in the premises for which explosive licence is not there was not included in the licence and thereby created a situation of danger not only to the premises but also to the surrounding commercial as well as residential area, the Form “B” licence bearing No.2/2003 issued in favour of M/s. V. Varadarajulu & Sons, HPC Distributors, Machilipatnam is here by kept under suspension, under clause 28(2) of the A.P. Petroleum Products (L & R.S.,) Order, 1980 pending enquiry.” If the authority has not used the wording “pending enquiry” there would have been some substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Of-course, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the words “pending action” as per the judgment referred to above are not mentioned. In my considered view whether it is pending action or pending enquiry it makes no difference. When once it is by way of interim measure no notice need be given. In Service Law, suspension of an officer pending enquiry is not a punishment. The same analogy applies to the case on hand. From this it can be seen that the delinquent dealer does not indulge in such sort of activity pending the said enquiry. Another aspect, which has to be dealt with, is that against an order of this nature, the petitioner is having a right of appeal as provided for under Clause-31 of the Control Order. For that reason also, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. The appeal provided under clause-31 of the Control Order is an alternative and efficacious remedy. The petitioner, without exhausting the said remedy of appeal, has approached this Court. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J.) 3rd December, 2009 Note: C.C. in 2 days. (B/O) Js. [1] 2003 (1) ALD (Cri) 430