THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.18372 of 2011 Date: 01.07.2011 Between: Sri G. Dhanraj … Petitioner and The State of A.P., Department of Civil Supplies, Rep.by its Ex-Officio Secretary and Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.18372 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri Padma Sharanappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for the respondents, and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner, who is a dealer in L.P.G. Cylinders, has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, in CCS Progs.No.E2/3026/2011, dated 3.6.2011, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking stay of the orders passed by the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector (CS), Ranga Reddy District in proceedings No.A3/CS/797/2010, dated 16.4.2011, insofar as directing the Oil Company to impose penalty on the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Shiridi Sai Indane Service, Vanasthalipuram, located at Sahebnagar, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, dealing in L.P.G. Cylinders. The 4th respondent-District Supply Officer, Ranga Reddy District, along with other officials inspected the business premises and godown of the petitioner on 6.10.2010 and 7.10.2010 and found certain variations, besides some defective domestic cylinders. Based on the report submitted in that regard, several charges were framed against the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his explanation. Considering the explanation of the petitioner with reference to the material, the 3rd respondent by order dated 16.4.2011 suspended the licence of the petitioner, besides ordering for forfeiture of the security deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with an application seeking stay of the said order dated 16.4.2011. The 2nd respondent, while admitting the appeal, by means of the impugned order dated 3.6.2011 rejected the stay application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 3.6.2011 is extracted hereunder: “This was an appeal filed by Sri G.Dhanraj, Prop. M/s. Sri Shirdi Sai Indane Service, Vanasthalipuram located at Sahebnagar, Ranga Reddy District, against the orders of the Respondent 1 i.e., the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District in No.A3/CS/797/2010, dated 16.4.2011 and requested to suspend the orders of the Joint Collector and to set aside the orders and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. The appeal was taken on file and after perusing the written arguments of the appellant, I find no reason to grant immediate stay on the orders of the Respondent-1 and therefore the request of the appellant to continue his Gas Agency business cannot be considered. These are orders are issued pending disposal of the appeal.” A perusal of the said order shows that the 2nd respondent has not assigned any reason in declining to grant interim order. 5. Indisputably, Clause 31 of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 provides an appeal to the 2nd respondent against the order passed by the 3rd respondent. Sub-clause (3) thereof also provides that pending disposal of the appeal, the appellate authority may direct that the orders against which the appeal is preferred shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed of. Thus, the 2nd respondent, who is the appellate authority, is vested with the power to entertain the appeal and also to grant interim orders interdicting the order appealed against. The exercise of the said power is not an empty formality and the same is required to be done fairly by due application of mind keeping in view the prima-facie case and irreparable injury that may be caused, if the order is not interdicted. The said power also shall be exercised by recording reasons. 6. It is well settled that recording of reasons is sine qua non for a valid order. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the 2nd respondent has neither assigned any reasons, nor applied his mind in rejecting the stay. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order 3.6.2011 and, the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration of the stay application, afresh, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 01.07.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.18372 of 2011 01.07.2011 (Msr)