Allowed

M/s. Babu Filling Station v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Ex-Officio Secretary

Telangana HC21 Dec 2015WP/41236/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a kerosene license. The impugned order was set aside, the petitioner's explanation for non-supply due to a family demise was accepted, and the license was restored to enable supply to cardholders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; petitioner's license restored; respondents directed to allow supply of kerosene subject to order conditions.

M/s. Babu Filling Station Vs State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.41236 OF 2014

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents.

¶5

2. In this Writ Petition, petitioner has questioned the proceedings dt.03.06.2015 of the 2^nd respondent canceling the petitioner’s license under the A.P. Petroleum Products(Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the Order’).

¶6

3. Petitioner contends that he has been issued such a license by the respondents and was supplying Kerosene to the card holders since last five decades. But in the month of April, 2015 because of demise of his close family member, the petitioner could not distribute Kerosene to the cardholders. Alleging that the petitioner has violated the above order, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.05.2015 to which the petitioner replied on 20.05.2015 mentioning the aforesaid reason for not supplying Kerosene during that month and then the impugned order was passed canceling the petitioner’s license under the above Order on the ground that the petitioner did not distribute the Kerosene in that month, although he was liable to do so as per the Order.

¶7

4. A reading of the impugned proceeding indicates that the 2^nd respondent did not consider the explanation offered by the petitioner in proper perspective and that the punishment imposed on the petitioner appears to be grossly disproportionate to the alleged violation of the Order.

¶8

5. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the explanation furnished by the petitioner for non supply of Kerosene during the month of April, 2015 is accepted and since the petitioner had any way been denied an opportunity to

¶9

supply Kerosene from June 2015 to till date, the respondents shall restore the petitioner’s license under the above Order and supply Kerosene for distribution to the cardholders subject to the petitioner fulfilling other conditions laid down in the said order.

¶10

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

7. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶13

21^st December, 2015. gra

M/s. Babu Filling Station v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Ex-Officio Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Babu Filling Station v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Ex-Officio Secretary

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

Kandi Narayana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Sri Jetavath Srinivas (Naik) S/o. Jetavath Hanmanthu Vs The Government of Telangana

Mandela Emberu Manar Swamy Nani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vasavi Arya Vysya Hostel Trust, Vs The Vidyut Ombudsman

G. Vinodha, W/o. Late Mopuru Obul Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by

Challagolla Vayunandana Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh