HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23369 of 2010 Date : 21-9-2010 Between: M/s. Leela Gas Agency, LPG Distributors, Indian Oil Co Limited, Represented by its proprietor Smt.K.Leela Kumari w/o.Stalin .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23369 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set- aside order dated 27-8-2010 passed by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was holding dealership for distribution of gas of Indian Oil Corporation at Banswada, Nizamabad District. Her Form-B licence was cancelled by respondent No.2 by his proceedings dated 22-1-2009. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed an Appeal before respondent No.1 with a delay of 568 days. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of the said delay. Respondent No.1, vide the impugned order, has dismissed the said application on the ground that no valid reasons for condonation of delay have been disclosed. In her affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has pleaded that due to her and her son’s ill-health which required continuous treatment and serious financial difficulties, she could not file the Appeal in time. In support of her plea, the petitioner has filed certain medical reports. Respondent No.1 has not considered the material placed by the petitioner in support of her plea for condonation of delay nor he has disbelieved the version of the petitioner that she and her son were not well. Though there is a long delay of 568 days, as respondent No.1 has not considered the plea of the petitioner from a proper perspective and having regard to the stand taken by the petitioner that due to ill-health of herself and her son, she could not file Appeal in time, I am of the opinion that interests of justice warrant hearing of the Appeal on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of delay. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of respondent No.1 is set-aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to entertain the Appeal and dispose of the same on merits. ___________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 21-9-2010 AM