THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.9168 of 2010 DT.03.11.2010 Between: M/s.Uttam Gas Agency BPC Distributor … Petitioner And The Collector (CS), District Collectorate, Medak at Sanga Reddy and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs.B.V.Aparna Laxmi Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 08.04.2010, and consequential order, dated 09.04.2010, of respondent No.1. The petitioner, who is a LPG Distributor, was granted licence by respondent No.1. As the licence has expired, the petitioner applied for renewal on 22.12.2008. However, while the application for renewal was pending, an inspection was made on 12.08.2009 by the Civil Supplies Officials, based on which, proceedings under Clause 28 of the A.P.Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the Order’) were initiated. Pending the said proceedings, the petitioner’s licence has been suspended under clause 28(i) of the Order. Consequently, an order was passed on 09.04.2010, directing the petitioner to handover the LPG godown to the civil supplies department. This Court by order, dated 23.04.2010, suspended the impugned orders, on account of which, the petitioner is being continued as the Distributor. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has submitted that in view of the pendency of this writ petition and suspension of the impugned orders, respondent No.1 has not proceeded with the enquiry and passed a final order. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that though at the time of inspection, the licence was not renewed, the same was renewed on 29.10.2009. As the enquiry is pending before respondent No.1, I am not inclined to render any findings on the pleas raised by the petitioner. However, it is relevant to note that admittedly when the inspection has taken place, the petitioner’s application for renewal was pending and evidently, the original licence was sent to the licencing authority for renewal, which lead to the petitioner’s failure to produce the licence. As the gravamen of the allegation appears to be non-production of licence, the petitioner’s explanation for such non-production appears to be convincing. However, this aspect requires to be considered and adjudicated by respondent No.1. As the petitioner is continuing as the Distributor on the strength of the interim order of this Court and the enquiry under clause 28(i) of the Order is pending before respondent No.1, it would be in the interests of justice that the petitioner is continued till completion of enquiry and passing of a final order. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of subject to the directions as above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 23.04.2010, passed in W.P.M.P.No.11847 of 2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.11847 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 03.11.2010 VGB