IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 7829 of 2009 Between: Sree Venkateswara Agencies, Indian Oil Dealers, Hindupur-515 201, Anantapur District, rep. by its partner D.B. Dwarakanath, S/o.D. Viswanath Gupta ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Food and Agriculture Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022. 2 The Commissioner of civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 086. 3 The Joint Collector (CS), Anantapur - 515 001. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Joint Collector (CS), Anantapur-515 001dated 05.07.2008 issued in Rc.No.K2/666/2007 cancelling the B-Form Licence of the petitioner and consequential proceedings of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 9.3.2009 issued n CCS Progs.No.E2/6695/2008 remitting the case of the petitioner to back to Joint Collector (CS), Anantapur without deciding about the legality of the order of Joint Collector (CS), Anantapur dated 5.7.2008 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to classes of the A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980 and contrary to principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to restore the Form-B licence to the petitioner and continue to supply K. Oil to the petitioner in normal course. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.P.ACHARYA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 7829 of 2009 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Joint Collector (CS), Anantapur dated 5.7.2008, issued in Rc.No.K2/666/2007 cancelling the B-Form Licence of the petitioner and consequential proceedings of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad dated 9.3.2008, issued in CCS Proc.No.E2/6695/2008 remitting the case of the petitioner to the Joint Collector (CS), Anantapur without deciding about the legality of the order of the Joint Collector (CS), Anantapur dated 5.7.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980 and principles of natural justice. It appears, 3rd respondent – Joint Collector (CS), Anantapur vide order dated 5.7.2008 cancelled the B-Form Licence (kerosene wholesale licence) held by the petitioner after conducting enquiry into certain allegations made against him as per the provisions of the A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before 2nd respondent – Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent found that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to defend himself and, having recorded such a finding, remanded the matter to 3rd respondent, for reconsideration, vide order dated 9.3.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellate authority could have either amended or set aside the order of 3rd respondent or at least passed some other order, more particularly, when it had found that principles of natural justice are violated and no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. Instead of doing so, the appellate authority had simply remanded the matter to 3rd respondent for re-consideration, which arbitrary and illegal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to go into these aspects at this stage, since the appellate authority itself had directed 3rd respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of four weeks after examining the contentions of the petitioner regarding supply of kerosene to the FP Shops in the month of November, 2007 and also by providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that even if the writ petition is to be disposed of, during the pendency of the matter before the 3rd respondent he is entitled for restoration of licence as there was a finding recorded by the appellate authority that principles of natural justice are violated. I am not inclined to accept this contention. As early as on 5.7.2008 the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled and during pendency of the appeal there was no stay and now it is almost 10 months that the petitioner is not running business. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appellate authority has not committed any error in not restoring the authorization of the petitioner while remanding the matter to 3rd respondent for reconsideration. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to complete the enquiry as directed by 2nd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders as per law. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 18-4-2009. MVB.