IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16936 of 2006 Between: S.Veera Reddy S/o.Malakonda Reddy K.L.No.1/49, Kowluru village, G.Konduru Mandal Krishna District R/o.76-14-243/2, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Deputy Tashildar (Enforcement) O/o.Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District 2 The Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents suspending the license by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.Rc.B1/268/2006 dated 17.6.2005 as null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16936 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is a kerosene hawker. On an allegation that he was involved in diversion of PDS Kerosene oil, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated against him. By the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 17-06-2005, the petitioner’s license to vend kerosene oil was suspended pending inquiry, in purported exercise of power under Clause 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (L & RS) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the Order, 1980’). In paragraph No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner clearly and categorically alleges that no show cause notice has yet been issued to him. The writ petition was filed on 11-08-2006, about fourteen months after the impugned order of suspension. The respondents have not filed the counter affidavit. A learned Division Bench of this Court in GUMMADISETTI v. JOINT COLLECTOR, KHAMMAM1, on an analysis of the provisions of Clause 28 (2) of the Order, 1980 clearly enunciated the principle that while a show cause notice need not preceed an order of suspension pending inquiry in every case, contemplation of an enquiry is a non-derogable circumstance and if enquiry is initiated even simultaneously with an order of suspension pending enquiry, that would not invalidate the order of suspension. In the case on hand, even about fourteen months after the impugned order of suspension pending enquiry of the petitioner’s license, no enquiry has been initiated or even a show cause notice is issued. The petitioner’s allegation on this factual aspect is not rebutted by any counter affidavit and hence on application of the principle ‘non-traverse’, it is deemed to have been established. The order of suspension is therefore unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. Since the respondents have not chosen to file a counter affidavit, this Court considers it appropriate to allow the writ petition with costs. The writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.3,000-00 (Rupees Three thousands only) of which Rs.1,000- 00 (Rupees One thousand only) shall be paid to the petitioner and Rs.2,000-00 (Rupees Two thousands only) to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,, J Dated:09-07-2008 Pvks/* Nb:- A copy of this order shall be furnished to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad for information. B/o pvks/* 1 2004 (1) ALD 535 (D.B.)