IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21748 of 2006 Between: M/s. Sri Sai Gas Agency, HPC Dealer, Gudur, Nellore District. … Petitioner And The Collector & District Magistrate, Nellore & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-5: GP for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri Nuthalapati Krishnamurthy Counsel for respondent No.7: Sri M. Suohi Kumar The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21748 of 2006 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who is an LPG dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for Gudur, Nellore District, filed this writ petition questioning proceedings dated 14.10.2006 issued by respondent No.1, whereby he suspended the petitioner’s dealership until further orders. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 12.09.2006 by framing the following charge: “Charge-1: The licensee is not supplying the LPG cylinders at the door steps of the consumers and thus violated Para 9(e) of LPG (RS&D) Order, 2000.” The petitioner was called upon in the said show cause notice to file his written explanation within 15 days from the date of its receipt. It was also indicated in the show cause notice that if the petitioner wanted to have any personal hearing, he is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 25.09.2006. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner is stated to have filed his explanation on 09.10.2006 before respondent No.2. But, in the meantime, respondent No.1 appeared to have received certain representations from various sources and without any notice to the petitioner, passed the impugned order. In paragraph 4 of the said order, it is stated that the Sub Collector, Gudur has reported that several complaints were received against the petitioner on irregular distribution of riffles to the consumers, that during a meeting convened by him, the consumers have made several allegations and requested to suspend the petitioner’s licence, that his discrete enquiries revealed that the petitioner is supplying domestic gas cylinders for commercial purpose and that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudur has conducted several raids on commercial establishments and hotels in the Gudur main road and seized 15 domestic gas cylinders. The Sub Collector, therefore, presumed that the petitioner is supplying domestic gas to the hotels and dhabas. In paragraph 6 of the said order respondent No.1 concluded that the petitioner has committed the following irregularities. “1) The firm is collecting higher price than the rates fixed by the Government from the consumers. 2) It is evident from the seizure of 15 LPG cylinders from the Dhabas and Hotels that the agency has been supplying the LPG cylinders for the commercial purpose which is meant for domestic consumption. 3) Home delivery is not being given to the consumers. 4) The agency is not booking the gas over telephone. 5) Besides several adverse news items have been publishing in local press on the irregularities committed by the agency.” Respondent No.1 also stated in his order that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.10.2006 i.e., after a lapse of 15 days from the prescribed time limit to submit reply to the charge framed by respondent No.2 and observed that he has committed several irregularities in supplying the LPG riffles to the consumers, that the petitioner was given several opportunities for representing his case and that he has been repeatedly committing the irregularities and causing inconvenience to the LPG consumers. In paragraph 9, respondent No.1 stated as under: “Thus, it is established that the agency has contravened the provisions of item Nos.4, 5, 10 and 11 of Schedule-I prescribed under sub-clause (4) of clause 3 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000 and clause 13, 20, 23 of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 and liable for punishment.” On the above premises, respondent No.1 suspended the LPG dealership of the petitioner by exercising his power under clause 28(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short, ‘the 1980 Order’) “until further orders”. At the hearing, Sri Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is wholly unsustainable in law. He further submitted that when respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice framing one charge, respondent No.1 has virtually wrested the proceedings from respondent No.2 and passed the impugned order in the most arbitrary manner suspending the petitioner’s dealership. He also submitted that in the light of the findings rendered by respondent No.1, the impugned order shall be treated as final order, though respondent No.1 has purportedly suspended the petitioner’s dealership until further orders. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, the impugned order is sought to be sustained. It is stated that a show cause notice was already issued on 12.09.2006 and therefore the impugned order is traceable to clause 28(2) of the 1980 Order, but not under Clause 28(1) thereof. I have also heard the impleaded respondents, who are respondent Nos.6 and 7. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the petitioner’s dealership was suspended on the basis of serious allegations. Under Clause 28(1) of the 1980 Order, the licensing authority is empowered to cancel or suspend the licence for contravention of any of the conditions of the licence, registration certificate or any directions issued by the competent authority. Under the proviso to the said clause, no such order shall be passed unless the licensee or the holder of the registration certificate has been given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case in writing and also without hearing him in-person against the proposed cancellation. Under Clause 28(2) pending action under sub-clause (1), the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing order for interim suspension of licence. Clause (2)(j) of the 1980 Order defines “licensing authority” as the Collector or any other officer authorized by the Collector in his behalf. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 was authorized by respondent No.1 to act as licensing authority. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.2 granted licence to the petitioner. Indeed, acting as licensing authority, respondent No.2 issued the show cause notice referred to above on 12.09.2006 framing one charge. But, while the said proceedings were pending, respondent No.1 issued the impugned order. In my opinion, when respondent No.2, who is authorized by respondent No.1, has already initiated proceedings for the alleged irregularities on the part of the petitioner, respondent No.1 will be denuded of his power to initiate simultaneous proceedings. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that respondent No.1 has taken over the proceedings from respondent No.2. Therefore, in my opinion, the very initiation of proceedings by respondent No.1, when proceedings before respondent No.2 are pending, constitutes usurpation of power vested in respondent No.1 and the same cannot be sustained in law. Further more, though the impugned order is purported to have been passed “until further orders”, respondent No.1 has given specific findings, as reproduced hereinabove, to the effect that the various allegations made against the petitioner stand established. Even if the impugned order is treated as the one passed under clause 28(2), as pleaded by respondent No.1, such findings, which are conclusive in nature, cannot be rendered in an order to be passed under clause 28(2). Unless proper explanation is called for from the petitioner in the enquiry and a final order under clause 28(1) is passed, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to give his conclusive opinion on the alleged irregularities against the petitioner. Once such a conclusive opinion is rendered by respondent No.1, the impugned order cannot be treated as the one passed pending further orders and any further enquiry would be rendered an empty formality. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that though show cause notice dated 12.09.2006 is not questioned in this writ petition, respondent No.2 will issue a comprehensive show cause notice afresh incorporating all the allegations and give an opportunity of filing explanation to the petitioner and that after giving him the opportunity of personal hearing, respondent No.2 will pass a final order under Clause 28(1) of the 1980 order. For the abovementioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.2, who is the licensing authority, is permitted to issue an additional show cause notice, hold an enquiry as per the procedure indicated by the learned Government Pleader and pass a final order thereafter. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.27584 & 27585 of 2006 and WVMP.No.708 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.06.2010. ES