HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31162 of 2014 Date:20.10.2014 Between:
M/s Vijaya Oil Company, Miryalaguda, reptd by its Dealer- Puvvada Srinivasulu . Petitioner And:
The State of Telangana, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and two others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Lakshma Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (Telangana State) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order in proceedings No.CS5/4659/2014, dated 08.10.2014, of respondent No.2, whereby he has cancelled the kerosene wholesale dealership of the petitioner.
At the hearing, Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that his client has a remedy of statutory appeal under Clause-31 of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980 (for short ‘the Petroleum Products Order”). He has, however, submitted that as respondent No.2 has not given the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as envisaged by the proviso to Clause-28(1) of the Petroleum Products Order, his client has filed this Writ Petition.
Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Telangana State), on instructions, submitted that not only that an explanation has been invited from the petitioner by way of a show cause notice, respondent No.2 has also heard the counsel for the petitioner, who has presented the written explanation of the petitioner in person on 29.09.2014.
A perusal of the impugned order supports this submission of learned Government Pleader.
In unnumbered para-2 of page-2 of the impugned order, respondent No.2 has clearly stated that the advocate of the petitioner has attended his office on 29.9.2014 and submitted the written explanation to the charges framed under the show cause notice and he has also requested to consider the explanation and drop the charges.
In unnumbered para-4 of the same page, respondent No.2 has further stated that the counsel for the petitioner has submitted explanation to charge No.2 and informed that the Form-B license, issued under the name and style of M/s Vijaya Oil Company, Proprietor-Sri Janakiramulu at Miryalaguda, is valid up to 31.12.2014;
that thereafter, on 02.08.2012, the licensees- P.Janakiramulu and Sri Puvva Srinivasulu have entered into an agreement with HPCL; and that presently, the petitioner is carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s Vijaya Oil Company at Miryalaguda.
In the ununmbered last para of page-2, respondent No.2 further referred to the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner.
At the hearing, Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the observations made by respondent No.2 in the impugned order are with reference to the contents of the explanation and not to the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner.
I find this submission as wholly without any merit. On a careful reading of the impugned order of respondent No.2, this Court is left without any doubt that the petitioner was represented by his lawyer and that respondent No.2 has given an opportunity of personal hearing, during which the petitioner’s lawyer made his submissions after handing over the written explanation of the petitioner to respondent No.2.
In the above-noted facts and circumstances, as this Court is convinced that respondent No.2 has complied with the requirement of personal hearing, as envisaged by the proviso to Clause-28(1) of the Petroleum Products Order, I find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition on the ground of the alleged violation of principles of natural justice. Since, the petitioner is left with an alternative remedy of appeal, the Writ Petition is dismissed without adjudicating the same on merits, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the said remedy.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.38954 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief stands dismissed as infructuous.
20th October, 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY