IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 18613 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.R. GOPI, S/O LATE P.K. RAMAN, PROPRIETOR, T.R. GAS, AGENCY, MATTANNUR, KANNUR 670 702. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KANNUR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 18613/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.24.12.07. P2. COPY OF THE EXPLANATION TO R2. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.18.3.08 BY R1. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R2A COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF LPG REGULATION ORDER 2000. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.18613 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an authorised distributor of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). On allegations of irregularities in the supply of gas cylinders, Ext.P1 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent under the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000 (“the Order” for short). The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation. By Ext.P3 order, the 1st respondent imposed on the petitioner a fine of Rs.3500/-. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order. 2. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P3 order there is no finding that the petitioner is guilty of any irregularity warranting imposition of penalty. What has been done in Ext.P3 order of the 1st respondent is to narrate the explanation of the petitioner and to hold that since there are widespread irregularities in supply of LPG cylinders by agencies, penalty is imposed on the petitioner under Clause 16(d) of the Order. According to the petitioner, there is no finding in Ext.P3 that the petitioner is guilty of any irregularities whatsoever. Without such a finding, the petitioner cannot be imposed with any penalty is the contention raised by the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd 2 respondent justifying the impugned order. According to them, in view of clause 16(d) of the Order, the District Collector is perfectly justified in imposing penalty. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Ext.P3 there is no finding whatsoever that the petitioner is guilty of any irregularity. Of course in Ext.P1 show cause notice, four irregularities are mentioned. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 explanation. What has been done in Ext.P3 is only to narrate the explanation furnished by the petitioner. There is no finding that the explanations are unsatisfactory and not accepted. There is also no finding that the petitioner is guilty of any irregularity. After narrating the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the District Collector simply imposed the punishment stating that, in view of widespread irregularities in supply of LPG cylinders by agencies, a fine of Rs.3500/- is imposed on the petitioner. I am of opinion that without first finding the petitioner is guilty of a specific irregularity, no fine could have been imposed on the petitioner. For that reason, Ext.P3 is unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed. However, if the 1st respondent is still desirous of continuing the proceedings against the petitioner, the 1st respondent may do so. But before imposing any penalty on the petitioner, there should be a specific finding that the 3 petitioner is guilty of any irregularity stating reasons for such conclusion. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge