THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25142 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons disclosed in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the Order dt.24.9.2008 in CCS Progs.No.E2/5371/2008 on the file of the first respondent and the proceedings dt.11.6.2008 in Proc.No.K2/73/2007 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and Award costs.” Petitioner is a wholesale kerosene dealer. On 07.10.2007, the Tahsildar, Gooty, submitted a report to the second respondent –Joint Collector, Anantapur, stating that on credible information of illegal transportation of blue dyed kerosene oil, the fourth respondent – Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, Anantapur Unit, along with his staff, has proceeded towards Kurnool National Highway Road No.7, intercepted a tanker bearing No.AP 02 T 5661, which was enrouted from Gooty Town to Kurnool and seized the tanker along with 12000 liters of blue dyed kerosene oil. Based on the said report, on the ground that the petitioner illegally diverted the blue dyed kerosene oil stock, enquiry proceedings were initiated against him, and the second respondent/primary authority in exercise of powers under Clause 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing & Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short ‘Petroleum Products Order’), suspended the license of the petitioner by his order, dated 11.06.2008 passed in Rc.No.K2/573/2007. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the first respondent/appellate authority – Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, as provided under Clause 31(1)(a) of the Petroleum Products Order. The appellate authority by order, dated 24.09.2008 passed in CCS Proceedings No.E2/5371/2008, dismissed the appeal confirming order, dated 11.06.2008, passed by the second respondent. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the said order. In this Writ Petition, it is submitted by Sri B.Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without any basis and the seizure itself is not occurred. In any event, there is no valid evidence to show that the petitioner has diverted the stock supplied to him violating the provisions of the Petroleum Products Order. It is also submitted that though the matter was listed before the appellate authority for hearing on 25.09.2008, it appears, the appellate authority has pre-determined the case and passed orders on 24.09.2008 itself in CCS Proceedings No.E2/5371/2008, and the same is evident from the said order itself. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that in view of illegal diversion of the stock of blue dyed kerosene oil which was meant for Public Distribution System, by recording valid findings, the primary authority has ordered cancellation of license of the petitioner and the same is confirmed by the appellate authority. It is also submitted that the date, which was mentioned in the order of the appellate authority, is only a mistake. When the matter came up on the last occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to produce the original record so as to know when the appellate authority heard the matter. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that the original file is not available as such the same is not produced before this Court. I have perused the orders passed by the primary and appellate authorities. Though certain reasons are recorded in support of the cancellation order passed by the primary authority, it is to be noticed that the order of the first respondent, who is the appellate authority, was passed on 24.09.2008 and in its operative portion, it is clearly recorded that the order was pronounced in the open Court on 24.09.2008. It is not in dispute that the appellate authority has posted the matter for hearing on 25.09.2008. If such is the case, it is not known how could that order was passed on 24.09.2008 even before hearing on 25.09.2008. Further, though there is a direction to the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents to produce the original record, the same is not produced stating that it is misplaced. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order so as to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent with the direction to him to consider it afresh, decide the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd NOVEMBER, 2011. kvni