IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2004 Between: M/s. Rapoori Eswar Reddy, Wholesale Kerosene Dealer, Hyderabad, Rep. By R.Sreenivasa Reddy. ..... APPELLANT AND Director of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, Panjagutta, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No.4299 of 1998 dismissing the same. On 20.3.1984 the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, had intercepted the oil tanker bearing registration No. APT-3391 on its way to Patancheru, loaded with 9000 liters of kerosene oil. On the allegation that the said tanker was diverted by the appellant for bulk sale, for wrongful gain, the vehicle was seized and proceedings under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated, in culmination of which confiscation orders were passed. Under separate proceedings licence granted to the appellant was also cancelled, which was however set aside by a Division Bench of this court in WA No. 195 of 1992 dated 13.9.1994, directing the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice dated 31.12.1994 was issued to the appellant framing three charges and calling for his explanation. It is case of the appellant herein that his clerk who was accompanying the said vehicle lost track in the heavy traffic and therefore, he has no knowledge of the said diversion. Disbelieving the said explanation, the Licensing Authority held the appellant responsible for the diversion of the kerosene meant for Public Distribution System in violation of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 and Conditions of the Licence and passed final order dated 18.6.1996 cancelling licence of the appellant, which was appealed by the appellant to the first respondent herein, who by order dated 30.8.1997 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned in this Writ Appeal dismissed the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant advanced the same contentions as were raised before the learned Single Judge. Having gone through the entire record and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge we are not persuaded by the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the clerk of the appellant had lost track and hence the allegation that the vehicle was diverted for sale of the kerosene in black-market is not correct. As observed by the learned Single Judge the finding of fact was recorded by the Primary Authority, after affording opportunity to the appellant and, therefore, the submission that the appellant had no knowledge that the said vehicle was diverted, cannot be subjected to roving enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution. The explanation on the face of it appears to be highly improbable and unbelievable. Having gone through the entire material available on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar December 17, 2009 MAS