HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18622 of 2010 Dated: 02-08-2010 Between: M/s.Chithirala Pullaiah & Sons, Wholesale Kerosene Dealers, Giddalur, Prakasam District, rep. by its Managing Partner. … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by the District Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18622 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a dealer in petroleum products and he is also holder of B-Form license granted under the provisions of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980, a Control Order framed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The stock of kerosene oil is seized from the shop of the petitioner, mainly alleging that he indulged in diversion of blue dyed kerosene oil into black market. Basing on the seizure report, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice, dated 24.07.2010, is issued to him in Rc.CS4/1320/2010, directing him to show cause as to why the B-Form license bearing No.4/PKM/2010 should not be cancelled. On the same day, as an interim measure, in exercise of power under Clause 28(2) of the Control Order, the license of the petitioner is suspended for a period of 90 days, pending finalisation of disciplinary proceedings. In this writ petition, it is contended by Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, that since the suspension of authorisation is for a period of 90 days, unless the petitioner is given an opportunity, no such order could have been passed. While it is true that in the order it is stated that the authorisation is suspended for a period of 90 days, but at the same time, from a comprehensive reading of the order, it is clear that in view of the prima facie evidence collected against the petitioner with regard to the allegation of diversion of blue dyed kerosene oil into black market, and in view of initiation of proceedings under Clause 28(1) of the Control Order, this order of suspension is passed in exercise of powers under Clause 28(2) of the Control Order, pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the fact that as the order is passed under Clause 28(2) of the Control Order, pending finalisation of disciplinary proceedings, the order shall be read as only an interim order till final orders are passed, and it need not necessarily be continued for a period of 90 days. The said period mentioned would come to an end on passing of final orders under Clause 28(1) of the Control Order. In that view of the matter, and in view of the serious allegations made against the petitioner, on which inquiry is pending, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned suspension order, at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if any explanation is filed by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 24.07.2010, the same shall be considered without reference to any of the observations made in this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd August 2010 ajr