HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.17201 of 2007 Date:18-01- 2008 Between :- P.Ravi Kumar, Chittoor District .. Petitioner And Joint Collect, Chittoor District and others .. Respondents H O N ' B L E S R I J U S T I WRIT PETITION No. 17201 of 2007 ORDER: 1. This Court issued notice before admission on 14.8.2007 and issued Rule Nisi on 7-9-2007. 2. Counter affidavit is filed. 3. Heard Sri Govardhan Venu, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for Civil supplies and Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar, counsel representing the respondents. 4. The counsel on record had taken this Court through the respective parties and also pointed out to the relevant portions of the material pleadings and in particular made elaborate submissions relating to non affording of reasonable opportunity and violations of principles of natural justice. Certain decisions also had been relied upon. 5. Heard the counsel and perused the respective pleadings of the parties and also the material placed before this Court. 6. It is a case of the petitioner that he is the proprietor of M/s. Ravi Kumar Gas Agency, Puttur and that he is an unemployed post graduate and is holding educational qualifications, MBA, M.Sc (Psy.) M.A. (Lit.) M.A. (History) LL.M., M.Phil., and belongs to scheduled caste. He has been appointed as dealer for distribution of LPG Gas cylinders at Puttur in Chittoor District by Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The petitioner has been doing his business of distribution of LPG Gas cylinders to the satisfaction of majority of his consumers. In the month of December 2006, some vested interests who are politically inimical to the petitioner have made false propaganda against the petitioner by making false accusations without regard to the truth. Due to such false propaganda on 19.12.2006 a news item was published in Vartha Daily and the said news item was published at the behest of some vested interests. 7. Further it is stated that in pursuance of such political campaigns and pressures the Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur inspected the business premises of the petitioner, issued a show cause notice and had given 15 days time to give his written explanation under Rule 28 (i) of APPP (L&RS Order 1980). The copies of show cause notice dated 29.12.2006 and ad-interim suspension order dated 31.12.2006 are also placed before this Court. 8. Further it is averred that the petitioner submitted his written explanation dated 18-1-2007, explaining in detail the incorrect nature of allegations leveled against him, enclosing thereto 8 documents in support of his explanation. Further it is averred that against the order of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector suspending the operations of his LPG dealership, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad on 12-1-2007. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, by his proceedings dated 22-1-2007 in E2/276/07, rejected the appeal stating that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. Against the said orders the petitioner had filed W.P. No.903 of 2007 on the file of this Court. However, the petitioner withdrawn the writ petition as not pressed and participated in the enquiry proceedings before the Joint Collector, Chittoor. 9. It is also averred that during the course of enquiry proceedings before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, besides the written explanation submitted by the petitioner along with the set of 8 documents, the petitioner had also filed a memo on 12-2-2007 and written submissions on 22-3- 2007 and additional written explanation to the written remarks of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur on 15-5- 2007. The copies of the same are placed before this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed an affidavit and petition to receive a compact disk of news items in Eenadu pertaining to incidents of irregularities in Gas supply at Puttur subsequent to the suspension of dealership of the petitioner. The same copies are also placed before this Court. In addition to this the petitioner had filed a set of written statements of several customers, including those whose names are referred as complainants, which are duly signed by them explaining that the petitioner has been performing LPG dealership duties without any irregularities and to the satisfaction of several customers. 10. It is also stated that the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.12749 of 2007 challenging the interim suspension order dated 31-12-2006 of LPG dealership passed by the Joint Collector and this Court disposed of the writ petition at admission stage itself by order dated 19-6-2007 directing the respondent No.1 Joint Collector to conclude the enquiry following due process of law and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which it has been made clear that Form-B licence of the petitioner shall stand restored. The order of this Court was received by the office of the Joint Collector on 25-6-2007. 11. Further it is stated that on 6-6-2007, the Joint Collector, Chittoor, has proceeded on training to Mussorie in Uttar Pradesh. The Joint Collector was scheduled to undergo training there from 11-6-2007 to second week of July and thereafter proceeded to United States of America for training in Duck University. He was scheduled to return to his office on 3- 8-2007. In his absence the District Revenue Officer O. Seshaiah has taken full charge of Joint Collector, Chittoor. 12. It is also stated that the proceedings against the petitioner were conducted by the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector had heard the matter on several hearings. However, by the time the matter reached the stage of passing orders, the respondent No.1-Joint Collector went on training and the District Revenue Officer, Chittoor has taken over full additional charge and adjudicated the proceedings against the petitioner. The said District Revenue Officer acting as Full Additional Charge of Joint Collector, Chittoor, in proceedings No.C2/1320/2006 dated 7-7-2007 made orders that the B Form licence granted to the HPC dealer i.e. M/s. Ravi Kumar Gas Agency, Puttur is cancelled under Section 28(i) of APP (L&RS) order 1980 in the public interest. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed raising several grounds in detail. 13. In the counter affidavit filed it is averred that in view of publication of News articles in Vartha Telugu daily on 18-12-2006 regarding difficulties of LPG consumers in obtaining Cylinders from Ravi Kumar Gas Agency, Puttur and also in view of periodical allegations from the consumers covered under this Agency, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur has inspected the LPG Outlet in question and seized the godown as variation in between book balance and ground balance has been noticed and also that the dealer has resorted for certain irregularities. In view of report of then Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur due departmental action has been initiated against the dealer and as he has resorted for irregularities the following charges have been leveled against the dealer:- 1) that there is variation in stock of 84 Full Cylinders of 14.2 Kgs short, 33 empty cylinders Excess and 5 Commercial cylinders of 19 Kgs are found unaccounted, 2) that the dealer is collecting Rs.20/- to Rs.50/- more on each refill cylinder at the time of delivery, 3) that the dealer is delivering domestic cylinders after 40 days of booking, 4) that the dealer has prepared bills for supply of refill cylinders with a delay of 22 to 25 days, 5) that the distributor and his agent Sudhakar have refused to sign in the panchanama recorded at the time of seizure, 6) that though the godown was seized on 27-12-2006 at 2- 30 PM under panchanama he has taken delivery of cylinders on 28-12-2006 delivered from the Oil company, 7) that the dealer not maintained timings for delivering cylinders and delivering them even at early hours i.e. 3.00 AM and 5.00 AM, 8) that the dealer has issued two sales bill to one Subramanyam of Thorur village, 9) that the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman, Mandal Level Services Committee, Puttur has complained that the dealer has been harassing one M. Nagur, Consumer No.600612 by not issuing a duplicate gas consumer card, 10) that the Municipal Commissioner, Puttur has complained that at the ordinary meeting of the Municipal Council held on 24-12-2005 the Chair Person and the councilors have passed resolution to have another agency from Indane gas or Bharat Gas as M/s. Ravi Kumar Gas Agency, Puttur is not in a position to supply cylinders to the satisfaction of the consumers”. 14. Even after seizure of godown, the dealer has received refills and has also distributed without permission of competent authorities. It is submitted that during hearing of the case, the dealer has admitted that cylinders are unloaded and distributed which evidently reveals that the dealer is not abide by the rules and also not paying attention to the instructions of the authorities. Further it is observed that the signatures of consumers are also not tallying and he himself had recorded statements from the consumers for which he is actually not empowered and his act in doing so is also unwarranted. While submitting his explanation, the dealer had failed to substantiate his argument duly enclosing the necessary proof. 15. Further specific stand had been taken that the stand taken by the petitioner, that he belongs to Scheduled Caste is not correct. The caste certificate obtained by the petitioner was proved to be bogus. A Gazette Notification has been published in Gazette No.59/2000 dated 7-9-2000 duly mentioning the number and dates, on which he obtained the certificates. The contention that the petitioner is doing the business of distribution of LPG Cylinders to the satisfaction of majority of his consumers is also not correct. Time and again, the consumers have made allegations against the petitioner and there is no substance in the version of the dealer that he is distributing LPG cylinders to the satisfaction of majority of the consumers. 16. Further it is stated that the District Administration has reacted on the periodical allegations of consumers and also on the report of the then Mdnal Revenue Officer, Puttur and no political pressure has influenced the District Administration and the cause of initiation of action against the dealer is exclusively in the interest of the consumers. It is further stated that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur in the capacity of inspecting authority, had inspected the godown on 27-12-2006 and generally the dealers are expected to remain in the godown during working hours and if not they should turn up during the course of inspection of the inspecting authorities. Seizure is conducted with due record of panchanama on 27-12- 2006 and the dealer or his authorized assistant refused to sign in the panchanama. 17. It is also further stated that in response to the averments made at paragraph 5, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29-12-2006 and the same was served on the petitioner on 4-1-2007. The suspension orders were issued on 31-12- 2006 under Section 28(2) of APPP (L&RS) 1980 and the same were served on the petitioner on 4-1-2007 and M/s. VKRR Gas Agency (HPC) distributor. Tirupati is kept in charge of M/s. Ravi Kumar Gas Agency, Puttur. The petitioner has offered his explanation on 18-1-2007 through his counsel and a copy of the same has been forwarded to the Tahsildar, Puttur for offering remarks and the Tahsildar, Puttur while offering remarks, has submitted that on enquiry the consumers have stated that the gas dealer delivered the gas refills after a lapse of 30 to 45 days from the date of booking for gas and that certain consumers have informed that the signatures appended in the bills are not related to their family members and that the petitioner collected an amount of Rs.342/- to Rs.370/- for each gas refill without giving door delivery. 18. The Tahsildar, Puttur has stated that the consumers never signed in support of M/s. Ravi Kumar Gas Agency and that the signatures below the typed matter are taken while they have been to the office for booking gas, in token of booking only. In between the period of seizure and serving of suspension orders, the dealer has not supplied gas at door delivery though their houses have never been kept locked. 19. It is also further stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18-1-2007 and prima facie it has got no substance and deserves no consideration. Further it is stated that aggrieved by the orders passed in proceedings No.C2/1320/2006 dated 31-12-2006 the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad requesting to suspend the operation of the orders and the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, while rejecting the appeal, observed that as per the material available, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur has inspected the premises of M/s. Ravi Kumar Gas Agency, HPC dealer, Puttur, Chittoor District on 27- 12-2006 and found shortage of 84 full LPG Cylinders 33 excess empty cylinders, and 5 commercial cylinders. She has also found major irregularities in distribution of LPG refills to the consumers. 20. It is stated that against the orders of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the petitioner filed W.P. No.903/2007 before this Court and the same was withdrawn. 21. Further it is stated that the reasons put forth by the petitioner in the grounds are untenable. The order of the District Revenue Officer acting as full Additional Charge of Joint Collector, Chittoor is well within the jurisdiction and not arbitrary, illegal or violative of principles of natural justice. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Rt. No.3152 GA (Spl.A) Department dated 5-6-2-2007 has accorded sanction for deputation of G. Rajendra Prasad, I.A.S., Joint Collector, Chittoor for participation of Mid Career Training Programme (Phase-III) commencing from 11-6-2007 to 3-8-2007 (first 6 weeks at the LBSNAA, Mussorie, followed by a 2 week exposure visit to USA) and the District Collector, Chittoor has been instructed to make necessary internal arrangements in the said period and consequently the Collector, Chittoor kept O. Seshaiah, District Revenue Officer, Chittoor, in full additional charge of the post of Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Chittoor District during the above period. As such the District Revenue Officer, Chittoor, in the capacity of Joint Collector, Full Additional Charge, is empowered to discharge all the duties of Joint Collector and this order is one among the orders passed during the above period. 22. It is also stated that the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Additional Mandal Revenue Inspector, Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Puttur and the executive staff are authorised to conduct enquiries. After examining all the material furnished, the Joint Collector (Full Additional Charge) has passed orders in pursuance of the enquiry report of the executive staff i.e. Mandal Revenue Inspector, Additional Revenue Inspector, Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar. While passing orders the enquiry reports have also been perused along with other material and the enquiry was got conducted on the substance mentioned in the explanation by the petitioner. There is no substance in the averment of the petitioner that documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner has not been examined. Before passing the order, all the material has been perused and no assumption and presumptions have governed the judgment. The employee of the godown of the petitioner, who is present at the time of seizure, refused to sign in the copy of the panchanama. The written explanation filed by the petitioner has been examined. Further, petitioner, without availing the statutory appeal provided under clause 31, has approached this Court. 23. The counsel for the writ petitioner placed strong reliance in Government of India, rep. By Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others vs. Captain H.R.Singha[1], G.L.N. Acharyulu vs. The Managing Director (Appellate Authority) State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad and others[2], P.subba Rao and others v . The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others[3], Kottu Acharao vs. Joint Collector and Additional district Magistrate, Kakinada and another[4] a n d Macherla Narayanamma vs. Jt. Collector, Anantapur and others[5]. 24. The District Revenue Officer, while acting as Full Additional Charge of Joint Collector, Chittoor had made the present order and there is no serious controversy the material had been gathered in the context of what had been reported by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Additional Revenue Inspector and Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar. The impugned order relies upon the enquiry reports of Mandal Revenue Inspector, Additional Revenue Inspector, Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar. 25. In the light of the facts and circumstances, it is also stated that though the petitioner is has having alternative remedy by way of appeal, the same is not efficacious alternative remedy for certain reasons which had been specified in Para No.12 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In respect of all the 10 charges framed against the petitioner, the Full Additional Charge Joint Collector had taken into consideration the enquiry reports of the officials who conducted the inspection and gathered information without intimation or notice to the petitioner, and with out furnishing the details of the same to the petitioner. It is also stated that all the 16 customers on whose complaints, the petitioner is sought to be punished, have in fact been written statements stating that they are receiving supplies from the petitioner without any difficulty and without paying any extra amounts and several other facts also had been narrated in detail in the grounds relating to each charge. The impugned order dated 7.7.2007 no doubt, is an elaborate order and a note had been referred to in the impugned order at Page No.16. “On an adverse news item published in Vaartha and Andhra Jyothi, Telugu dailies dt.18.12.2006 & 19.12.2006 under caption “ ” the Tahsildar, Puttur was directed to inspect the Gas Agency run by M/s Ravi Kumar Gas Agency, Puttur and submit a detailed report. The Tahsildar, Puttur has reported that she along with CSDT (Enft), Deputy Tahsildar, Godown Deputy Tahsildar, Puttur and staff members of her office staff inspected the Gas Agency on 27.12.006 and verified the records and also the stock position of cylinders filled and empty at the godown situated on Chennai – Tirupati Bypass road (adjacent to Punnami Restaurant). The Tahsildar has reported that she detected certain grave irregularities including difference in the stock position mentioned in the stock register and those found in the godown and had seized the stock of cylinders on that day itself under panchanama as there was variation of cylinders between those mentioned in the stock register and those found on physical verification. As the irregularities reported were grave in nature the dealer was ordered to be kept under “Interim Suspension” pending enquiry in this office proceedings C2/1320/06, dt.31.12.06. A show cause notice was also issued to the dealer in this office notice No.C2/1320/06, dt.29.12.06 calling for his written explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and also to appear for a personal hearing before the Joint Collector on 20.01.2007. M/s Ravi Kumar Gas Agency, Puttur (under interim suspension) approached Commissioner of Civil Supplies, A.P., Hyderabad with an appeal petition on 12.1.07 against this office proceedings C2/1320/06, dt.31.12.06 keeping him “under interim suspension” and the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, A.P., Hyderabad has taken the appeal petition on file and called for this office records. Accordingly the connected records were submitted to Commissioner of Civil Supplies, A.P., Hyderabad in this office letter C2/1320/06, dt.21.01.07. The C.C.S., has issued orders in E2/276/07, dt.22.01.07 stating that there is “prima-facie” case against the appellant dealer and observed that there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Joint Collector, dt.31.12.2006 to suspend the operation of the said orders and rejected the appeal petition. The Dealer (under interim suspension) has also filed a WP in 903/07 before the Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad and the Hon’ble High Court in order No.WP 903/07, dt.11.1.07 has observed that the court is not inclined to grant an ex parte interim order acceding to his contention as the impugned order passed is only pending enquiry and the delinquent dealer has himself withdrawn his WP No.903/2007 as per his Advocates letter, dt.17.1.2007 addressed to the Registrar (Judicial) High Court of AP, Hyderabad. While the above process regarding finalization of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the dealer was in progress, the dealer has again approached the Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad, praying for setting aside the orders of his interim suspension ordered by the 2nd respondent (Joint Collector) and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner (suspended dealer) to carry on his gas agency business. The Hon’ble High Court has issued orders in WP No.12749 of 2007, dt.19.6.2007.” 26. The report of the Tasildar had been repeatedly referred to in the finings in detail and in the show cause notice also, reference was made to the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur dated 27.12.2006 and the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur dated 28.12.2006. 27. In the light of the decisions referred to supra, this Court, without expressing any further opinion relating to the other merits, is inclined to give further opportunity to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent. Let the 1st respondent furnish to the petitioner, the material which had been relied upon by him while recording reasons in passing the impugned order, permitting the petitioner to file further additional explanation if any, and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within a reasonable time. 28. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ____________________ ( P . S . N A Dt:18-01-2008 mrb [1] 1994 (3) ALT 213 (D.B.) [2] 1993 (1) ALT 316 [3] 1961 AWR 256 [4] 1999 (3) ALT 48 [5] 1995 (3) ALT 458