Allowed

M/s. Golla Chenchaiah Ipb Retail Kerosene Dealer, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep bythe Secretary to

Telangana HC27 Dec 2010WP/26889/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioner's kerosene dealership licence. The High Court held that the licensing authority failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing as required under the Order, specifically ignoring the petitioner's request for an extension. The order quashing the cancellation was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.10.2010 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to submit an additional explanation within two weeks, followed by a personal hearing within four weeks.

M/s. Golla Chenchaiah Ipb Retail Kerosene Dealer… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.26889 of 2010

¶3

Date: 27.12.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Golla Chenchaiah

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Secretary to Government, Hyderabad and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Kamalakar

¶11

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies

¶12

Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri T. Srinivas

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the proceedings in Rc.B.12/2010 dated 20.12.2010 of respondent No.3, whereby he has cancelled the retail kerosene dealership of the petitioner.

¶16

I have heard Sri P.Kamalakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶17

The petitioner is a retail kerosene dealer, who was granted licence bearing No.160/81 by respondent No.3. On certain allegations, respondent No.3 has issued a show-cause notice dated 02.08.2010 to the petitioner and on the same day his dealership was placed under suspension. The petitioner has made a representation on 09.08.2010 to respondent No.3, wherein he requested for supply of three documents to enable him to give a meaningful and effective explanation. As those documents were not supplied, the petitioner issued a telegram on 12.08.2010 followed by another representation dated 13.08.2010. As the documents were not supplied, on 16.08.2010 the petitioner submitted its interim explanation. On 11.10.2010, respondent No.3, issued a notice to the petitioner to attend his office at 5.00 p.m. on that day for perusal of the documents. The petitioner immediately replied to respondent No.3 stating that as all the records are with his lawyer, he may be given notice. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that on 12.10.2010 the documents required by him were received. On the same day, the petitioner’s lawyer has filed a memo before respondent No.3 with a request to him to grant a week’s time for submitting the explanation. Another similar request was made on 20.10.2010 for further extension of time. However, respondent No.3, by his impugned order dated 20.10.2010, cancelled the dealership licence.

¶18

Ordinarily, when an order of cancellation of licence was passed, the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party under Clause 31(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the Order’). The petitioner filed this writ petition without availing such remedy on the ground that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard as envisaged in proviso to Clause 28(1) of the Order.

¶19

A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3, wherein it was pleaded that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner,

¶20

who failed to avail such an opportunity.

¶21

I have carefully heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶22

A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.3 has made a reference to the petitioner’s memos dated 12.10.2010 and 20.10.2010. In his order, respondent No.3 has adverted to memo dated 12.10.2010, whereby the petitioner made a request for granting of a week’s time for filing an additional explanation. Quite curiously, he did not advert to the petitioner’s memo dated 20.10.2010, even though a reference was made by him at reference No.5 of his order. The fact that reference was made to the petitioner’s memo dated 20.10.2010 shows that the impugned order was passed after receipt of such representation. As noted above, respondent No.3 has not dealt with the said representation. If respondent No.3 has felt that the further request made by the petitioner, vide his representation dated 20.10.2010, for extension of time for filing additional explanation was not reasonable, he should have rejected the said representation and stated so in the impugned order. Instead, respondent No.3 has not taken any particular stand with reference to the petitioner’s request for further extension of time as made in its representation dated 20.10.2010. Under Clause 28(1) of the Order, no order thereunder shall be made without giving a reasonable opportunity of representing his case in writing to the licensee and also hearing the licensee in person against the proposed suspension. In the above admitted facts of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that respondent No.3 has failed to give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case as envisaged in the above noted clause. As the petitioner’s licence was already under suspension, this Court does not find any justification for respondent No.3 to pass a fresh order in a hurry by ignoring the petitioner’s request made on 20.10.2010. It is significant to note that the petitioner has made an averment in the affidavit that the

¶23

incumbent of office of respondent No.3 was transferred by order dated 11.10.2010 and that was the obvious reason why he passed the impugned order before giving charge to his successor. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 has handed over charge on 20.10.2010, the date on which the impugned order was passed. These facts certainly lend support to the allegation made by the petitioner that respondent No.3 has acted in a post-haste manner by passing the impugned order without considering the petitioner’s request for further extension of time for filing additional explanation.

¶24

For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 20.10.2010 of respondent No.3 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to submit his additional explanation, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing such additional explanation, respondent No.3 shall give an opportunity of personal hearing either to the petitioner or his counsel and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of additional explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner. If no such explanation is filed within the time stipulated above, respondent No.3 can proceed further and pass a final order within the time indicated supra. The order dated 02.08.2010, by which petitioner’s licence has been suspended will continue to be in force till passing of final order by respondent No.3 under clause 28(1) of the Order.

¶25

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶26

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34363 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶27

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶28

27^th December, 2010 GHN

M/s. Golla Chenchaiah Ipb Retail Kerosene Dealer, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep bythe Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Golla Chenchaiah Ipb Retail Kerosene Dealer, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep bythe Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanga Vijayalakshmi Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Smt. Muni Lakshunumma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Adbul Rehaman Vs The Joint Collector

M/s. Suresh Productions, Rep. by its Managing PArtner Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Habeeb Ali Vs The Gram Panchayat

Kasukurthi Sundararao Vs The Chairman and Managing Director