IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 18415 of 2008 Between: M/s. D. Chainnaiah & Sons S.K.O. Dealer & Wholesale Kerosene Dealer, Rep. by its Managing Partner, D. Kiran Kumar S/o. Raja Aged about 35 years, Narasaraopet Mandal & Town, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ orderor direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting stay application without giving any opportunity of hearing and also without passing speaking order is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Consequently suspend the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No. 1095/2008/S4 dted 21-7-2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The Writ Petition assails the validity of the order of the 1st respondent dated 4.8.2008, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of stay of an order of suspension of the petitioner’s Form-B licence, ordered by the 2nd respondent on 21.7.2008, has been rejected. By the order dated 21.7.2008, the 2nd respondent suspended the Form-B licence of the petitioner, a wholesale kerosene dealer of Narasaraopet, on the ground that 15,200 litres of Public Distribution System kerosene was found in 61 drums in Avula Satram on the Narasaraopet-Sattenapalli road, which was not the authorized premises under the licence. Certain other allegations of irregularities were also recorded for the suspension of the authorization. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent inter alia pleading in the grounds of appeal that the business is being pursued at Door No. 5-1-387 near clock tower at the main road and on 1.6.2008 there was a ‘Dharna’ by one political party of Narasaraopet constituency opposite to the licenced premises and therefore the police issued permission to the petitioner to unload the quota of kerosene at a diﬀerent place; accordingly he has unloaded the kerosene in the site of his relative Ainavole Rajendraprasad near Venugopalaswami temple at Sattenapalli road and that in the circumstances there was no transgression of the conditions of licence or of any control order. In rejecting the appeal by the order dated 4.8.2008, the 1st respondent merely recorded that from the impugned order of the Joint Collector dated 21.7.2008, it is apparent that the enforcement staﬀ had found a quantity of 12,200 litres of PDS kerosene pertaining to the petitioner’s dealership at an unauthorized place and therefore there was a prima facie case, justifying the suspension. The petitioner’s complaint is that in rejecting the application for interim relief against the order of suspension, the ﬁrst respondent-appellate authority failed to consider the grounds of appeal by the petitioner, wherein he had adopted a justiﬁcation for unloading of the kerosene at the unauthorized location. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies points out that as is apparent from the 2nd respondent’s order dated 21.7.2008, the plea on behalf of the petitioner was not that the kerosene was loaded at the unauthorized site on account of a ‘Dharna’ by a political party on 1.6.2008 or a permission by the police, but as reported by the clerk of the petitioner, who stated so at the time of inspection, the stocks were kept at a place other than the licenced premises due to lack of accommodation. The order of the 2nd respondent dated 21.7.2008 also records that this fact has been admitted by the managing partner of the petitioner-firm. It may be that there is an improvement of the defence by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal vis-à-vis the statement made either by the petitioner’s clerk or the managing partner of the petitioner-ﬁrm before the Joint Collector or at the time of inspection of the unauthorized premises where the kerosene was unloaded. It is however for the 1st respondent-appellate authority to consider these apparent contradictions in the defense and record in the order disposing of an application for interim relief, in support of the conclusion recorded. Since the appellate jurisdiction is a quasi-judicial in nature, the appellate authority is required to record reasons and not conclusions alone. The satisfaction of a prima facie case against the petitioner is incomplete without an analysis of the explanation of the petitioner. On the aforesaid analysis, the ad-interim appellate order of the 1st respondent dated 4.8.2008 cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations of this Court herein. The 1st respondent shall pass a fresh order expeditiously and preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J DATE: 26.08.2008 CVM