THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.116 OF 2011 Dated:08.03.2011 Between: M/s.Golla Chenchaiah Retail Kerosene Dealer, (formerly IBP), now Indian Oil Corporation, Soingarayakonda, Prakasam District, represented by its Partner Sri Golla Venkataka Ramanaiah .. Appellant And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.116 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein is the writ petitioner, who by way of appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent seeks the correctness of the order dated 27.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.26889 of 2010 to the extent of giving a direction to continue suspension even though final order of cancellation has been set aside by allowing the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a retail kerosene dealer, who was holding licence since 1981. On certain allegations of irregularities, a show cause notice was issued on 02.08.2010, for which the appellant/petitioner submitted his explanation. However, having not satisfied with the same, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted. After holding a regular enquiry, final order was passed on 20.10.2010 cancelling the dealership licence. Challenging the same, Writ Petition No.26889 of 2010 was filed. In the writ petition, the petitioner, while denying the allegations made against him, contended that the entire enquiry was done behind his back and no opportunity was given to him. The learned Single Judge, accepting the contention about the absence of due procedure and opportunity being given to the appellant, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 20.10.2010. However, while allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that the order dated 02.08.2010 by which petitioner’s licence has been suspended will continue to be in force till passing of the final order by respondent No.3 under Clause 28 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record. This appeal is filed at the instance of the writ petitioner/appellant, whose adverse orders dated 20.10.2010 have already been set aside by the learned Single Judge by order dated 27.12.2010 and in this appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, the only question is continuation of suspension of the petitioner’s licence, till passing final orders by respondent No.3. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the substantial quantity of kerosene is still lying with the appellant; it is getting evaporated and further it will cause unnecessary loss to the appellant as well as to the State and the consumers at large. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies is not in a position to state as to whether kerosene was seized, and if so, the exact quantity of kerosene lying with the appellant/petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that let there be sale of the entire quantity of kerosene that is lying with the appellant herein under the supervision of respondent No.3 or through his officials, in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 08.03.2011 KSM/KH