IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21227 of 2002 Between: M/s. Keeerthi Auto Services, Rep. by K.Madavi, IBP Petrol Pump, Subedari Post, Hanamkonda, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND The Additional Divisional Managaer, IBP Company Limited, Business Group Petrolium, 9-1-83 and 84, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direcdtion more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to orders APW/21 dt 10-10-2002 issued by the respondet and quash the same by holding it as illegal, bad and arbitrary and further direct the respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioner for loss caused due to the closer of the petrol pump and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21227 of 2002 ORDER: Heard both the counsel. The writ petition has been filed questioning the impugned order dated 10.10.2002 issued by the respondent, under which the respondent suspended the sales and supplies of the petitioner IBP Petrol pump, for a period of 30 days besides levying a penalty of Rs.20,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner has already paid the penalty of Rs.20,000/-, though an interim direction was issued by this Court in so far as the collection of the said penalty is concerned by order dated 28.10.2002. The contention of the respondent is that as per the arbitration clause of the dealership agreement, the petitioner has to approach before the Arbitrator if she has any grievance, and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the issue. A perusal of the record would go to show that without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the impugned order has been passed. In the impugned order there was a direction to the petitioner to submit her explanation within 7 days, but the said impugned order is stated to have been received by the petitioner on 17.10.2002 and there is no time to submit her explanation, but however it is stated that the petitioner submitted her explanation to the respondent, but the respondent did not consider the same. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and hence the impugned order is directed to be treated as show cause notice, permitting the petitioner to submit her explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already submitted, and on filing such explanation or if already available with the respondent, the respondent may consider and dispose of the same within two weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 11.04.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Additional Divisional Managaer, IBP Company Limited, Business Group Petrolium, 9-1-83 and 84, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies