IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 115 of 2010 Between: M/s Saroja Indane LPG Agency, IOC Dealer, Musthabad, Karimnagar district represented by its Proprietor K.Damodar Rao, S/o Shankar Rao, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o Musthabad, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector (CS), Karimnagar District and 2 others. .....RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.115 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner approached this court and filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the first respondent – District Collector under which the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner was given dealership in liquid petroleum gas by the Indian Oil Corporation in the year 2005 and he is having all valid licences and he has been doing the said business without committing any irregularity. On 17.12.2009 the second respondent along with his staff visited the business premises of the petitioner and basing on the statements of some of the customers submitted a report to the first respondent stating that the petitioner is collecting excess amounts for supply of refills and also for giving new connections. Basing on the said report submitted by the second respondent, the first respondent, by exercising powers conferred on him under section 28 of the A.P. Petroleum Products (L&RS) Order 1980 passed the impugned order suspending the licence in Form – B of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry into the said allegations. Hence approached this court and filed the present writ petition. 3 The Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent has not initiated any proceedings so far, as contemplated under section 28 (1) of the A.P. Petroleum Products (L&RS) Order 1980, as such the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 is liable to be set aside as it was passed in contrary to the provisions of Clause 28 of the said Order. 4 Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contended that as against the impugned proceedings passed by the First Respondent – District Collector, the petitioner is having a right of appeal and without exhausting the same the petitioner has straight away approached this court and filed the present writ petition. 5 Without going into the merits and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. whether the first respondent has conducted any enquiry basing on the report submitted by the second respondent before passing the impugned order or whether the petitioner was given any opportunity of being heard, this Court is of the view that as against the order of this nature, the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy i.e. by filing an appeal before the appellate authority and without exhausting the same, the petitioner has straight away approached this court and filed the present writ petition. 6 Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and file an appeal within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter the appellate authority may hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. Till the appeal is decided, the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the District Collector is suspended. No costs. --------------- 06.01.2010 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. (Bo) Gsn