IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9808 of 2004 Between: Nagendar Trivedi, s/o.Late Jageshwar Trivedi, R/o.Kothagudem, Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Civil supplies, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Khammam Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.E2/171/2003, dt.6-4-2004 passed by 1st respondent in so far as remand to 2nd respondent is concerned and consequential notice dt. 27-04-2004 by 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction, without authority of law against the provisions of Clause 29 of A.P.Petroleum products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) order, 1980, or pass other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deed fit and proper in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9808 of 2004 ORDER: M/s.Umadatta Ram Ratan is a ﬁrm engaged in the business of IOC wholesale kerosene dealer. It obtained a licence under the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (Control Order, for brevity), which is issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The second respondent passed order under clause 28(2) of the Control Order suspending the licence of the petitioner on the ground that a kerosene tanker containing 12 kilo litres of kerosene oil meant for public distribution system was found indulging in diverting the kerosene stock to open market. The suspension order passed by the Joint Collector, dated 06.03.2003, was challenged by the petitioner ﬁrm before the ﬁrst respondent under clause 31 of the Control Order. By impugned order dated 06.04.2004, the ﬁrst respondent while observing that during the pendency of the appeal the Joint Collector restored the licence of the petitioner, remitted the matter to the Joint Collector with a direction to review the case and pass appropriate orders accordingly. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. Though the debate before the Court was emphasized with reference to power of Joint Collector under clause 28(2) of the Control Order even though there is no such action under clause 28(1) of the Control Order, having regard to three Division Bench judgments which cover the ﬁeld, it is not necessary to go into the question in this present case. As observed by the appellate authority, the Joint Collector restored the licence. This only means that with reference to the report of the Vigilance Oﬃcer, action has to be taken as per clause 28(1) of the Control Order. This Court, however, hastens to add that having regard to subsequent events wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, ordered 20% conﬁscation, it is for the Joint Collector to decide as to whether to pursue the matter under clause 28(1) of the Control Order. As and when a show cause notice under clause 28(1) of the Control Order is issued to the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the grounds. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.09.2008 vs To 1 The Director of Civil supplies, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Khammam Dist. 3 2CCs to G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA}