THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NOS.16568 & 16576 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since common questions of fact and law arose, these two writ petitions are heard and disposed of together. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are the licensees under Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing & Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short, ‘the Order’) for distribution of L.P. Gas cylinders at Adilabad. The business premises of the petitioners were inspected by the 3rd respondent on 31.01.2008 and reports were submitted to the 2nd respondent alleging certain irregularities. On the basis of the same, show cause notices dated 07.02.2008 and 29.02.2008 were served on the petitioners calling upon them to submit their explanations as to why their license in Form-B should not be cancelled. The petitioners submitted detailed explanation dated 17.03.2008 and 05.03.2008 respectively, denying the charges leveled against them. However, the 2nd respondent - Collector, Civil Supplies, Adilabad passed orders dated 23.07.2008 holding that all the charges against the petitioners were proved. Accordingly, the license of the petitioner in W.P.No.16568 of 2008 was suspended for a period of one year apart from forfeiting the entire amount of security deposit. Similarly, the license of the petitioner in W.P.No.16576 of 2008 was suspended for a period of six months and the entire amount of security deposit was forfeited. The said orders, dated 23.07.2008 passed under Clause 28 (1) of the Order are under challenge in these writ petitions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders of suspension were passed without properly appreciating the explanations oﬀered by the petitioners and at any rate, since no opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Clause 28 (1) of the Order was given to the petitioners, the impugned orders being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice are liable to be set aside. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondents, it is stated that after receiving explanations from the petitioners, notices dated 24.04.2008 were issued for open hearing to be conducted on 30.04.2008. Accordingly, the petitioners attended the open hearing on 30.04.2008 at 5.00 p.m., along with other L.P. Gas dealers and voluntary consumer organizations. During the open hearing, the petitioners were asked to oﬀer their explanation for each charge and each charge was read out before them and their additional explanation if any, was called for. Since the petitioners failed to explain the reasons and also could not produce any documentary evidence in support of their explanations, after ascertaining the views of NGOs., and Smt. Sandhya Kiran Vaidhya in-charge of District Consumer Information Center, Adilabad, regarding the distribution of L.P. Gas by the petitioners, the cases were reserved ‘for judgment’ and subsequently, the impugned orders of suspension, dated 23.07.2008 were passed. On the basis of the said counter aﬃdavits, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the allegation that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioners, is absolutely false and without any basis. The learned Government Pleader while submitting that the impugned orders were passed on proper appreciation of the explanations oﬀered by the petitioners as well as the other material available on record, further contended that even if the petitioners are aggrieved, they cannot maintain these writ petitions without exhausting the alternative remedy of Appeal available under Clause 31 of the Order. Clause 28 (1) of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing & Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 reads as under: “Contravention of Conditions of Licence/Registration Certificate/Supply Card/Provisions of this Order:- 1) No holder of a licence or registration certiﬁcate or supply card issued under this order or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene, attempt or abet the contravention of any of the provisions of this Order or any of the conditions of the licence/registration certiﬁcate or any directions issued there under if any such holder or his agent or the servant or any person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the said terms or conditions may be cancelled or suspended for such period as may be speciﬁed by an order in writing by the licensing authority. Provided that no order shall be made under this clause unless the licensee or the holder of registration certiﬁcate has been given a reasonable opportunity for representing his case in writing and also having heard in person against the proposed cancellation.” It is clear from the Proviso to Clause 28 (1) of the Order that no order of cancellation or suspension shall be made unless the licensee is given a reasonable opportunity for representing his case in writing and also an opportunity of personal hearing against the proposed cancellation/suspension. In the cases on hand, admittedly, the petitioners herein were issued show cause notices enumerating in detail the allegations against them and calling upon them to submit their explanations. Thus, they were provided a reasonable opportunity for representing their case in writing. So far as the opportunity of personal hearing is concerned, the contention of the petitioners is that the so called open hearing and social audit conducted by the second respondent on 30.04.2008 was not in conformity wit the requirement under clause 28 (1) of the Order. Thus, it is contended that there was no personal hearing in the eye of law and therefore the impugned action of the respondents was not only in violation of the principles of natural justice but also contrary to the statutory provisions and therefore notwithstanding the alternative remedy available under the Statute, the present writ petitions can be maintained. On a careful reading of clause 28 (1) of the Order, I am unable to hold that the procedure followed by the 2nd respondent was not in conformity with the statutory requirement. What all required under clause 28(1) is giving an opportunity of personal hearing to enable the licensee to appear in person so as to establish that the charges levelled against him are unfounded. Merely because the 2nd respondent conducted “public hearing and social audit” by involving an authority from the District Consumer Forum as well as the sales oﬃcer of the oil company, it cannot be said that there was no personal hearing as contemplated under Clause 28 (1) of the Order. Particularly since no provision could be pointed out by the petitioners which prescribed a speciﬁc procedure for personal hearing, I am not inclined to hold that the impugned order was illegal only on the ground that the 2nd respondent conducted pubic hearing. However, it is speciﬁcally alleged by the petitioners that on 30.4.2008 except discussing certain problems relating to the consumers in general, the 2nd respondent did not consider the charges against the petitioners and no hearing as such was conducted with reference to the action initiated against the petitioners under the show-cause notices dated 7.2.2008 and 29.2.2008. It is also the speciﬁc case of the petitioners that no notice was served on the counsel for the petitioners and consequently they could not be represented through their counsel in the hearing held on 30.4.2008. On a perusal of the original record produced before this Court, I ﬁnd force in the above contentions and moreover it is clear from the impugned orders that the 2nd respondent proceeded on an assumption that the petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their explanations. Having regard to the above lapses noticed which undoubtedly have a bearing on the correctness of the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent, I am of the opinion that the personal hearing provided to the petitioners was not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Hence, without going into merits of the case, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside so as to provide a further opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are hereby set aside and the Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.11.09.2008 tjs