IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23341 of 2007 Between: Shaik Lal Meera S/o. Meera Saheb R/o.Anumanchipalli Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector (CS), Krishna at Machilipatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Tahsildar, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PALLE NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenged Order, dated 18-08-2007, passed by respondent No.1, whereby his Kerosene Hawkers License was cancelled. At the hearing, Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, advanced two contentions viz., (1) Respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and; (2) the impugned Order cannot be sustained on merits. With regard to contention No.1, in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.1, it is stated that under Clause 2 (j) of the A.P.Petroleum Products (L&RS) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the 1980 Order’), the Joint Collectors are the competent authorities to issue the licenses and take disciplinary action against the hawkers. I have perused the definition of Clause 2 (j) of the 1980 Order, which defined licensing authority as the Collector or any other Officer authorized by the Collector in this behalf. Under Clause 28 (1) of the 1980 Order, the power to cancel or suspend the license is vested with the licensing authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s license was granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and therefore, respondent No.1 has no power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order cancelling the said license. I have not felt inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner because even if the power to grant license is delegated to the Mandal Revenue Officer, respondent No.1, being the licensing authority, is not denuded of the power to take disciplinary action. Even if such power is delegated, the principal will still retain the power, which the delegatee is entitled to exercise. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by exercise of such a power by respondent No.1, the petitioner is denied the right of revision. Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal before the Director, Civil Supplies, against the impugned order, but he has not availed the said remedy and filed the present Writ petition questioning the impugned Order on merits apart from raising the objection of lack of jurisdiction in respondent No.1 to pass the impugned order. The fact remains that the petitioner’s right of appeal is kept in tact even if respondent No.1 exercised the power of cancellation of the license. Therefore, I find no illegality in respondent No.1 exercising his power and jurisdiction to cancel the license of the petitioner. With regard to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was found to have committed the following irregularities: “1. The hawker has diverted 1,325 liters of Kerosene Oil into black market during the month of December, 2006. 2. The hawker has delivered 2 liters of Kerosene to the card holders but entered as 4 liters delivered and made fictitious entries in Kerosene Sales register for the month of December, 2006 and failed to maintain true and correct accounts. 3. The hawker has collected excess rates for Kerosene @ Rs.10/- per liter instead of Rs.9-50 per liter.” Irregularity No.1 is serious in nature. In the impugned Order, it is stated by respondent No.1 that the petitioner, in his explanation, has taken the stand that he lifted 1440 liters of Kerosene Oil in the month of December, 2006 and distributed the same to card holders on coupons, but he did not enter the same in the sales register. The petitioner further stated that the Officers have taken all the coupons from him. Having regard to the admission of the petitioner that the sales conducted by him did not reflect in the register, I do not find any illegality in the finding of respondent No.1 that the petitioner diverted 1325 liters of Kerosene Oil during the month of December, 2006. This irregularity is enough to sustain the order of respondent No.1 cancelling the petitioner’s license. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.30415 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 9th July, 2009 lur