HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.25683 of 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed 'to declare the proceedings dated 23.12.2020 issued by respondents 2 and 3 suspending Form-B licence issued in favour of petitioner for distributing the Gas Cylinders through M/s Lakshmi Vinayaka Indane Gramin Vitarak, Kondapuram, LPG under the provisions of A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980, as illegal and arbitrary.'
2. Case of the petitioner is that, she obtained distributorship for sale of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) Agency from M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and the LPG Agency is being run by the petitioner in the name of 'M/s Lakshmi Vinayaka Indane Gramin Vitarak' since 20.06.2017; on 14.12.2020, the 5th respondent along with Vigilance & Enforcement officials, inspected the premises of the petitioner's agency and seized the available ground stock of LPG cylinders and filed a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 seeking to confiscate the entire seized stocks to the Government and to initiate necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent on 16.12.2020 and petitioner submitted her explanation on 19.12.2020 and considering the said explanation, the impugned order suspending form-B licence of the petitioner was passed on 23.12.2020 in fact, there is no variation at all; cylinders were sent out for delivery and the closing stock would be uploaded only at 7 p.m. but the inspection was done at 3 p.m. and hence, there is a variation in the stock; the 5th respondent also sent a report for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, but no 2 KVL, J WP No.25683 of 2020 separate report is sent for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and hence, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated and relied upon the judgment in 'Tiriplex Agencies vs. District Collector & others1'; the report said to have been submitted by the 5th respondent was not served on him along with show cause notice and hence, the writ petition.
Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition and further submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Tiriplex Agencies (supra).
Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed for violation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 and conditions of Form B license of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980, pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. He further submits that show cause notice was already issued to the petitioner on 16.12.2020, which is prior to the issuance of the impugned order and that the explanation of the petitioner was also considered before passing of the order.
As seen from the impugned order, petitioner submitted her explanation to the show cause notice through her counsel and her explanation was found to be not satisfactory, as she has not produced any valid and relevant documents to disprove variation and hence, form- B licence was kept under suspension in accordance with the Control Order, 2018.
One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that report of the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar is not 1 1994(1) ALT 158 3 KVL, J WP No.25683 of 2020 issued to the petitioner. But when the petitioner submitted her explanation to the show cause notice dated 16.12.2020, she did not ask for the same. As seen from the show cause notice that report deals with the inspection of the subject agency and the variations that are found with regard to the stock.
The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to clause 20(i) of AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short 'Control Order, 2018'), a separate report has to be filed for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the dealer under the provisions of the said Order, 2018 and in the present case, no such separate report has been sent by the Tahsildar. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in WP No.500 of 2020 in support of the said proposition and the interim direction that was granted in WP No.19772 of 2020 dated 22.10.2020 basing on the judgment in WP No.500 of 2020.
As seen from the interim order dated 22.10.2020 in WP No.19772 of 2020, it is passed basing on the order in WP No.500 of 2020. WP No.500 of 2020 was filed by a fair price shop dealer, challenging the suspension of his authorization under Control Order, 2018. The said Control Order deals with the fair price shop dealers and its licences. According to the clause 20(i), a separate report has to be sent for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the fair price shop dealer for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. But as the said Control Order itself does not apply to the case of the petitioner, reliance on the said Control Order and the interim order in WP No.19772 of 2020 and the final order in WP No.500 of 2020, does not come to the aid of the petitioner.
4
KVL, J WP No.25683 of 2020 Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the licence of the petitioner ought not to have been suspended pending 6-A proceedings. For the said proposition, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in Tiriplex Agencies's case (supra). As seen from the facts of the said case, petitioner in the said case is a dealer of LP Gas and he filed the said writ petition challenging the suspension of form B licence issued under A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies Order, 1980. In the said case, licence was suspended pending 6- A proceedings against the petitioner therein and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein was that merely because 6-A case has been booked, licence of the dealer cannot be suspended pending finalization of the enquiry under Section 6-A. In those circumstances, it was held that 'the competent authority vested with the power under Control Order has to independently apply its mind to relevant facts viz., prima-facie material against petitioner and circumstances warranting immediate suspension of licence, before passing an order of interim suspension'. In the said case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of this Court in 'P Hanumantha Rao vs. Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad2', wherein it was held that 'the 2nd respondent obviously fell into error in assuming that so long as proceedings under Section 6-A were pending against the petitioner, the suspension of the dealer's licence should be an automatic consequence and suspension of the authorization cannot go on for an indefinite length of time linking it up with the outcome of the proceedings under Section 6-A.' By relying upon the said judgment, in Tiriplex Agencies' case (supra), this Court held as follows:
2
1993 (2) LS 105 5 KVL, J WP No.25683 of 2020 "The same principle governs the present case and in the light of the said judgment, the impugned order of suspension pending 'finalisation' of Section 6-A enquiry cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly I quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 9-12- 1993 leaving it open to the District Collector to pass fresh order keeping in view the observations made above. The 1st respondent may also consider whether, having regard to the fact that the enquiry under Section 6-A is already in progress and it is likely to be finalised soon, it is necessary to direct interim suspension of the licence. 1 would like to make it clear that it is open to the 1st respondent to make an enquiry under the provisions of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order by framing specific charges irrespective of pendency of the enquiry under Section 6-A and to take such action as may be deemed fit and contemplated by the relevant Control Order."
As seen from the above observation, as the suspension was pending finalization of 6-A enquiry, this Court interfered with the same and allowed the writ petition. However, it was also observbed that the respondent can make an enquiry under the provisions of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 2018 irrespective of finalization of the enquiry under Section 6-A.
But as seen from the present impugned order, form-B licence of the petitioner was suspended pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings and not pending enquiry under Section 6-A. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Tiriplex Agencies's case (supra) will not come to the aid of the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned suspension order. However as the petitioner has already submitted her explanation, the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, 6 KVL, J WP No.25683 of 2020 preferably within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner seeks any of the documents or reports, the 2nd respondent is directed to supply the same and on receipt of such documents or reports, petitioner is at liberty to file additional explanation pursuant to the impugned order, if need be.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed.
________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 07.01.2021 BSS 7 KVL, J WP No.25683 of 2020 HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.25683 of 2020 Date: 07 .01.2021 BSS