THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.25483 of 2009 ORDER: 1 Petitioner who is a distributor of Hindustan Petroleum Gas cylinders, approached this court and filed the present writ petition questioning the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the first respondent whereby the petition filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of the order passed by the second respondent dated Nil/10/2009 was rejected while the matter stands posted to 21.11.2009 as arbitrary and illegal. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner is a licencee issued under Clause 28(2) of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1980 to distribute H.P. gas cylinders at Tirupathi, Tirumala and Renigunta and the said licence is in force. On the basis of a report furnished by the Task Force, the second respondent herein suspended the distributorship of the petitioner vide proceedings in ROC.B/2/888/2009 dated Nil-10-2009. Assailing the said order, the petitioner approached the appellate authority i.e. first respondent herein and filed an appeal. According to the petitioner, along with the appeal it also filed an application seeking suspension of the order passed by the second respondent. It is further stated that the first respondent, having heard the petitioner on 19.10.2009, 03.11.2009 and 04.11.2009 directed the petitioner to file an additional affidavit. When the petitioner was under an impression that it would be heard further, it was informed by way of a notice that the matter will be taken up for further hearing on 21.11.2009. But to its utter surprise, the petitioner received an order dated 20.11.2009 to the effect that the suspension petition was rejected and the appeal will be taken up for hearing. The same is questioned in this writ petition. 3 The main contention of the learned senior counsel Mr.C.V.Mohan Reddy appearing for the petitioner is that, the first respondent, having heard the counsel for the petitioner and directed him to file an additional affidavit and further stated that he will hear the matter and adjourned the same to 21.11.2009, ought not to have passed the impugned order on 20.11.2009 rejecting the said suspension petition. 4 Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that it is only after hearing the counsel for the petitioner the first respondent, having not satisfied with the case on hand and having not found any irregularity or illegality to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent, rejected the said suspension petition pending consideration of the appeal. 5 In the light of the said submissions, this court has gone into the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the first respondent. Nowhere in the said order the first respondent has stated that he heard the counsel for the petitioner and it is only after consideration he refused to grant stay or suspend the order passed by the second respondent. What was stated in the impugned order is that he has gone into the material placed before him. When once an appeal and an application seeking suspension of the order passed by the original authority is filed, the appellate authority shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the aggrieved party or to his counsel and then pass appropriate orders. When once it is the contention of the petitioner that he appeared before the first respondent and advanced arguments, the same should have been reflected in the order impugned in this writ petition. Further, when the matter itself is posted for hearing on 21.11.2009, and issued a notice in that regard, there is no need for the first respondent to pass an order rejecting the request of the petitioner before the said date. In that view of the matter and inasmuch as the appeal itself is still pending consideration, this court is of the view that the first respondent can be directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. 6 Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission, with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the order passed by the Joint Collector dated Nil-10-2009 shall not be given effect to. No order as to costs. -------------- kvsn 24.11.2009