THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17080 of 2011 Date: 21.06.2011 Between: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Filling Station, Aswaraopet, Aswaraopet Mandal, Khammam District, rep.by its Proprietor Chitluri Gangadhar Rao. … Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Khammam, Khammam District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17080 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri V. Ravindra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a retail petroleum outlet dealer of the 2nd respondent-Corporation challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Khammam, in Rc.No.E-75-2011, dated 16.6.2011, suspending the licence of the petitioner on the ground that sub-standard Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel was being sold, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a retail outlet dealer of the 2nd respondent-Corporation in the year 2005. On 2.2.2011 after the product was down loaded at the petitioner’s outlet, the Assistant Supply Officer inspected the petitioner’s retail outlet and taken the samples. The said samples were sent to A.P. Forensic Laboratories, Hyderabad. On the very next day, the officials of the 2nd respondent-Corporation have also inspected the petitioner’s retail outlet and have taken the samples of the very same product. The said samples were sent to the authorized Laboratory at Visakhapatnam. The samples sent to the Laboratory at Visakhapatnam revealed that the parameters of the product complied with the standards, whereas the samples sent to A.P. Forensic Laboratories, Hyderabad, revealed that the product did not conform to the required standards. Therefore, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 15.6.2011 to the petitioner calling for his explanation. Even before submission of the explanation by the petitioner, invoking the powers under clause 28(2) of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1980, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 16.6.2011 suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the samples drawn was tested at the authorized Laboratory at Visakhapatnam, which revealed that the parameters of the product were complying with the standards, whereas the very same sample sent by the Assistant Supply Officer to A.P. Forensic Laboratories, Hyderabad, showed that the product did not conform to the required standards. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that even without considering the report received by the 2nd respondent in respect of the very same product, passing the impugned order is bad in law. He also submits that the petitioner could not submit his effective explanation to the show cause notice, as he is not supplied with a copy of the report submitted by the A.P. Forensic Laboratories, Hyderabad. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent fairly concedes that the procedure adopted in passing the impugned order even while proposing to conduct a regular enquiry by issuing a show cause notice dated 15.6.2011 is illegal. 6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, however, submits that this Court cannot go into the merits of the case in view of the fact that since an enquiry has already been initiated pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner can as well participate in the said enquiry and defend his case. 7. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. In view of the fact that an enquiry has already been initiated, it is appropriate that the 1st respondent be directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a time frame. 8. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order: (i) The 1st respondent is directed to supply a copy of the report submitted by the A.P. Forensic Laboratories, Hyderabad, to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) On receipt of such report from the 1st respondent, the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation within three days thereafter; and (iii) On receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the 1st respondent is further directed to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate final orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 21.06.2011. NOTE:- Issue C.C. in two days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17080 of 2011 21.06.2011 (Msr)