THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.A.NO.649 of 2010 13-09-2010 BETWEEN; M/s.Chithirala Pullaiaha and sons ...Appellant vs. The State of A.P, rep. By the District Collector, Prakasam District and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.A.NO.649 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant against the judgmen dated 02-08-2010 in W.P.No.18622 of 2010. The appellant is the dealer i petroleum products and holder of a B-Form licence granted unde the provisions of A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation o Supplies) Order, 1980, a Control Order framed under the provisions of th Essential Commodities Act,1955( for short “1980 Control Order”). Allegin diversion of blue dyed kerosene oil (meant for public distribution system into the market for black marketering, on the basis of an inspection of th petitioner’s business premises, a seizure report was drawn up an proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. By a show cause notic dated 24-07-2010, the appellant was asked to show cause why his B-Form licence be not cancelled and on the same day the 1st respondent passe the order, which to the extent relevant and material reads as under:- “ after careful examination of the report submitted by the Distric Supply Officer, Ongole and as there is a prima facie evidence abou the diversion of Blue K.Oil into Black Market by Sri Chitirala Bhaska Managing Partner, M/s Cheetirala Pullaiah & Sons, Wholesale K.O Dealer, Giddalur, the B-Form Licence bearing No.4/PKM/2007 of S Chitirala Bhaskar, Managing Partner, M/s Cheetirala Pullaiah & Sons Wholesale K.Oil Dealer, Giddalur is placed under suspension unde Clause 28(2) of AP Petroleum Products (Licensing & Regulation o Supplies) Order 1980 for a period of 90 days pending finalization o disciplinary proceedings. The Senior Divisional Manager, IOC Limite is requested to dispense with further deliveries immediately t M/s.,Cheetirala Pullaiah & Sons, K.Oil Wholesale Dealer, Giddalu during the suspension period.” Aggrieved by the 1st respondent‘s order dated 24-07-2010 suspendin the B-Form licence for a period of 90 days, the appellant filed the wr petition contending inter alia that the order is invalid and contrary to th provisions of Paragraph 28(1) of the 1980 Control order. The learne single Judge found the order of the 1st respondent to be incoherent a falling within the provisions of both Paragraphs 28(1) and 28(2) as wel but on reconciliation of the substance of the order construed the same a one falling within the provisions of the Paragraph 28(2) and held that th order would be operative till the disposal of the substantive inquiry agains the petitioner and passing of the final order under Paragraph 28(1). Paragraph 28(1) of the 1980 Control order while enjoining that n holder of a licence or registration certificate or supply card issued unde the order or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behal shall contravene, attempt or abet the contravention of any of the provision of this order or any of the conditions of the licence, registration certificate o any directions issued thereunder; enjoins further that on suc contravention the licence or registration certificate or supply card may b cancelled or suspended for such period as may be specified, by an orde in writing by the licensing authority. The proviso to Paragraph 28(1 enjoins that no such aforesaid order of cancellation or suspension shall b made unless the licensee or the holder of registration certificate i provided a reasonable opportunity of representing his case in writing an being heard in person against a proposed cancellation or suspension Sub-para (2) of Paragraph 28 empowers the licensing authority for reason recorded in writing to order an interim suspension of the licence registration certificate or supply card, pending action under paragrap 28(1). On a true and fair construction of the provisions of Paragraph 28, it i clear that the powers available under Paragraph 28(1), pertain to th power to visit the licensee or registration certificate holder with the penalt of cancellation or suspension for a specified period of the license or th authority as the case may be and after providing an opportunity therefo including a personal hearing; while the power under Sub-para(2) o Paragraph 28 is a power to suspend pending an inquiry under Sub-par (1) the licence or the registration certificate. Normatively an ad interim suspension ordered under Sub-para (2) ought not to contain specification as to the period of suspension but the suspension woul enure pending finalisation of proceedings initiated under Sub-para(1) o paragraph 28. The order of the 1st respondent which was the subject matter of th writ petition was incoherent in this respect, viz., that it incorporated a tim frame referable to exercise of power under Sub-para (1) while exercisin the power to order suspension pending inquiry by employment o expressions like prima facie evidence; and pending finalization o disciplinary proceedings. The learned single Judge therefore found and rightly that in substanc the exercise impugned in the writ petition was truly and fairly one unde Sub-para(1) of Para 28 and that the specification of the time frame was a inadvertent inclusion and that having regard to the seriousness of th alleged subversion of public interest by the writ petitioner/appellant herein judicial discretion warrants that the order of the 1st respondent herei (impugned in the writ petition) should not be set aside but could b reconciled by treating it as an exercise of power under Sub-para (2) o Paragraph 28 of the 1980 Control order. The learned Judge clarified tha the order would enure till finalisation of the substantive proceedings an passing of the final order by the licensing authority under the provisions o Paragraph 28(1) of the 1980 Control Order. We find no error in the application of law, the analysis of the order o the exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge, warrantin interference in writ appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. N order as to cost. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ___________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010. TSNR