IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7987 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Sai Baba Enterprises (HPCL Dealer) Door No.4-411, Durga Complex, Indian Bank Building, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. S. Syam Prasad, S/o. Pullaiah, aged 66 years, R/o. Chilakaluripet, Guntur district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Civil supplies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (CS), Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Joint Collector (CS), Guntur, Guntur District. 4 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, rep. by its Regional Manager, Vijayawada, Krsihan district. 5 The Tahsildhar, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. N.SUBBA REDDY assisted by R.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. P.V.SANJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not passing orders on stay application filed along with Appeal No.E2/2701/08 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Heard Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. The petitioner has been functioning as a dealer of respondent No.4 for distribution of LPG cylinders since 1984. By order, dated 26.03.2008 passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner’s license has been suspended and simultaneously, on the same day, a show cause notice was issued to it for cancellation of the license. Questioning the order of suspension, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1 on 31.03.2008. The main grievance of the petitioner is that while the very suspension of its license is wholly unjust, respondent No.1 ought to have acted with reasonable dispatch in disposing of the stay application filed along with the appeal. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the two grounds on which the petitioner’s license has been suspended, namely, he shifted the premises without prior permission and he sold the agency to a third party against the statutory rules and the conditions of license. He submitted that as regards the first ground, prior intimation was in fact, given and at any rate, the petitioner has not shifted the godown. With reference to the second ground, the learned counsel submitted that the allegation that the petitioner sold the agency to a third party is the subject matter of O.S.No.160 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chilkaluripet and that by order, dated 03.04.2008 passed in I.A.No.484 of 2006, the said Court granted injunction against the third party, who claimed to have purchased the agency. He, therefore, submitted that the substantive ground based on which the petitioner’s license has been suspended is the subject matter of the civil suit and that unless and until a conclusive finding is rendered therein, there is no justification for the respondents to initiate proceedings for cancellation of license and its suspension pending the enquiry. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that since the appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the order of suspension, the petitioner is not entitled to assail the legality or otherwise of the order of suspension. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that since the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 is pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to express any opinion on the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But it is required to be noticed that the substantive allegation made against the petitioner, namely, he sold the agency to a third party, is the subject matter of the civil suit. Further, it is also of relevance to consider the fact that there are no allegations of omissions and commissions against the petitioner in running the gas distributorship. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that interests of justice would be met if respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Till then, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10505 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th APRIL, 2008 Note: issue operative portion by ‘wire’ at party’s costs. B/o kvni