IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.1313 of 2004 Between: M/s.Sri Valli Filling Station, Indian Oil Corporation Dealers, Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.T.Tirumal Reddy, S/o.T.Rameshwar Reddy, Aged about 31 yrs, N.H.7, Bhiknoor (M), Nizamabad. … Petitioner And Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Registered Office at G/9, Aliyavarjung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-51, and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.Suman for Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Thoom Srinivas This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1313 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings SDO/R/233, dated 19.01.2004, of respondent No.2 whereby he has suspended sales and supplies of the products for fifteen days from 19.01.2004 and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner. Heard Sri C.Suman, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. Petitioner is running a retail outlet for sale of the products of respondent No.1. On 28.10.2003 the Officials of the respondents have drawn Mobil 2T sample from the petitioner’s retail outlet. On the basis of the purported test results, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 31.10.2003 to the petitioner calling upon the latter to explain why action should not be taken against it as per the prevailing Marketing Discipline Guidelines. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted its explanation on 17.11.2003. In the said explanation, the petitioner stated that the procedure adopted by the mobile lab of the respondents in taking samples was improper. The petitioner explained the reasons for raising such a plea in its explanation. By the impugned order, respondent No.2 imposed the above mentioned penalties. From a perusal of the impugned order it is evident that respondent No.2 has not given any reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s explanation. Except making a cryptic observation that the petitioner’s explanation is found not satisfactory, the contents of the explanation have not been referred to and no reasons are indicated to find the explanation not satisfactory. It is trite that giving reasons in support of a decision having adverse consequences is a part of principles of natural justice and the absence of reasons vitiates the decision (see Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v Union of India[1]). As the impugned order is devoid of any reasons whatsoever, the same cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Liberty is given to the respondents to pass a fresh order by giving appropriate reasons in accordance with law. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.12.2009 vs [1] AIR 1966 SC 671