IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11101 of 2010 Between: Shaik Abdul Rasheed trading under the Name and style of M/s. Rafi Oil Agency, Wholesale Kerosene Dealer, Mylavaram, Krishna District. ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Civil Supplies Corporation, Govt., of A.P., Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11101 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 03.04.2010 issued by respondent No.2. By the said order, respondent No.2 has cancelled the kerosene wholesale dealership of the petitioner in exercise of his power conferred under clause 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. The short ground on which the petitioner filed this writ petition bypassing the statutory appeal is that he has been denied the adequate opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. Even as evident from the impugned order, on 08.03.2010, when the case was posted for hearing, the petitioner was present and during the course of hearing, he requested respondent No.2 for granting him one more opportunity and to produce evidence in support of his plea. Respondent No.2 has, however, declined to adjourn the case by observing that except denying the charges, the petitioner has not produced any material in support of his contentions. This Court has called upon the petitioner to submit additional explanation, if any to be offered by him. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the proposed explanation bearing 10.06.2010, as the date. I have perused the explanation. However, I am not inclined to give any finding on the acceptability or otherwise of the explanation because eventually if this Court is convinced that the petitioner is denied reasonable opportunity, it is for respondent No.2 to consider the additional explanation and the material, if any filed in support thereof by the petitioner. With reference to the reason given by respondent No.2 that the petitioner has not furnished any evidence in support of his denial, the same is not convincing because it is precisely for the reason of furnishing further evidence that the petitioner asked for further time. As the order of cancellation visits the petitioner with serious consequences, in my opinion, respondent No.2 ought to have given the petitioner one more opportunity to put-forth his case. Denial of such opportunity has resulted in serious violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to allow the petitioner to file additional explanation and the material, if any within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of such explanation and material, respondent No.2 shall dispose of the same afresh. Pending passing of the final order, status quo as on today, shall be maintained in respect of distribution of kerosene. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.14145 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 26.10.2010 ES