Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Makkena Anjali, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 January, 2021

Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi

          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

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

1994(1) ALT 158

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.

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:

1993 (2) LS 105

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.