THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.16742 of 2009 DATE:17.08.2009 Between: Smt.G.Venkatamma ... Petitioner and The Joint Collector (CS) II, Ranga Reddy District and another .... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.16742 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the proceedings in A/ASO.II/335/2007, dated 27.11.2007, issued by 2nd respondent, and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to supply kerosene to her fair price shop No.198 of Nacharam village, Uppal Mandal, R.R. District. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that she is a dealer of retail kerosene shop bearing No.198 of Nacharam village, Uppal Mandal, R.R. District. On 26.11.2007, the Assistant Supply Officer, Circle No.II, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District - 2nd respondent along with the checking Inspector has inspected the N.R. Shop of the petitioner, found excess stock of 64 litres of kerosene, and seized the available stock of 172 litres of kerosene, under cover of panchanama dated 26.11.2007. Subsequently, basing on the report of the Area Inspector concerned dated 27.11.2007, the 2nd respondent registered a case against the petitioner, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and suspended her licence, by proceedings No.A/ASOII/335/2007, dated 27.11.2007, pending enquiry under the powers conferred vide clause 28(1) of the A.P. Petroluem Products (Licence and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980, and in order to avoid inconvenence to the cardholders of N.R.Shop No.198 of Nacharam village, directed the nearest dealer of F.P.S.No.208/U to honour the cardholders of N.R.Shop No.198 by issuing kerosene, as per rates and quantum fixed by the Government from time to time. Aggrieved by the same, she filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the 2nd respondent suspended the licence of the petitioner without giving opportunity to file explanation; that though the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 26.03.2008 seeking to set aside the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.11.2007, along with stay petition seeking suspension of operation of the said proceedings, the 1st petitioner has not passed any order on the stay petition or disposed of the appeal so far; that despite the petitioner gave explanation on 09.06.2008 seeking to set aside the report of the Area Inspector and restore her licence, to the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings in A/ASOII/335/2007, dated 02.06.2008, calling upon her to show cause as to why her N.R.licence should not be cancelled, under the provisions of clause 28(1) of A.P. Petroleum Products (Licence and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980, within seven from the date of receipt of the said notice, it is still pending; that the 2nd respondent issued the said show cause notice dated 02.06.2008 after seven months from the date of suspension of the licence of the petitioner; that the petitioner submitted her explanation on 09.07.2009 seeking to set aside the 6-A proceedings and charge levelled against her, to the show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent in 6-A case No.A7/857/07, dated 11.12.2007, calling upon her to submit her explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, to show cause as to why the seized stock should not be confiscated to the State, under Section 6-A of the Act, but however, it is still pending; that this Court, in the order dated 22.12.1995 in W.P.No.26711 of 1995, held that the appointing authority is expected to complete enquiry into cancellation within 90 days and if the enquiry is not completed within the said period, the order of suspension is liable to be revoked, and therefore, prays to allow this writ petition. 5. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the very attitude of the respondents in not completing the enquiries both under 6-A of the Act and the A.P. Petroluem Products (Licence and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 is blameworthy, and the respondents cannot keep the petitioner in air so long. More over, when the petitioner approached the 1st respondent and filed an appeal, the duty is cast upon the 1st respondent to dispose of the said appeal, at the earliest. As the proceedings are pending for about two years, this Court takes a serious note of it and directs the respondents to dispose of the proceedings both under 6-A of the Act and the A.P. Petroluem Products (Licence and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. If the respondents fail to dispose the said proceedings, within the stipulated time, the licence of the petitioner shall automatically be restored, and the petitioner shall be permitted to supply the kerosene to the cardholders, in accordance with the conditions of the licence. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 17th August, 2009 NOTE: Furnish CC by three days B/o CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.16742 of 2009 (Disposed of) 17th August, 2009 NOTE: Furnish CC by three days B/o CBS