THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.16707 OF 2006 Between : M/s. V.V.R. Engine Oils, Thammavaram, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, rep. by its Proprietor V. Mohan Krishna Reddy. …... PETITIONER And The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Kakinada, East Godavari District. …....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N. Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies The Court made the following. ORDER: Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of sale of High Speed Diesel Oil, has filed this writ petition to declare the proceedings of the respondent, viz., the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Kakinada, East Godavari District, in Ref.V10/CS/299/2006, dated 01.08.2006 suspending the licence bearing No.29/2005 under the provisions of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing & Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the Control Order’) pending further orders, as illegal. The Assistant Supply Officer, Kakinada and his team inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 28.07.2006 and found that a stock of 5186 lts. of adulterated kerosene was stored without any bill/permit/licence. Basing on the report filed by the said inspecting officer, the respondent herein passed the impugned order suspending the licence until further orders for contravention of the conditions of 6(i), 3(iii) of the licence, which are the violations under the Control Order. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has not contravened the conditions of licence or the provisions of the Control Order as alleged, and at any rate the respondent has no jurisdiction to suspend the licence in the purported exercise of the powers under Clause 28 (2) of the said Control Order. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the impugned order is only interim order suspending the licence pending enquiry and the petitioner can as well take all the defences available to him in the regular enquiry. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is only interim in nature to enable conducting regular enquiry as provided by the Control Order. That being so, the petitioner can certainly raise all the defences available to him in the regular enquiry to establish that he has not contravened either the conditions of the licence or the provisions of the Control Order. Be that as it may, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.20924 of 2006, dated 28.09.2006 suspended the operation of the impugned order, thus enabling the petitioner continue to conduct the business. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner is accordingly carrying on the business by virtue of the said interim orders as on the date. That being so, it is not appropriate to disturb the business of the petitioner at this point of time. Instead, the enquiry itself can be directed to be concluded within a time frame. In the circumstances, the respondent is directed to complete the enquiry after due notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained pending conclusion of such enquiry. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 13th December, 2010 Js.