Puttur Mandal Domestic Gas Consumers'' Welfare Association vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—On 2-11-1992 by proceedings No. E4/5040/92, the 2nd respondent suspended the licence of the 3rd respondent under Clauses 12(1)(ii), 15, 20(1) and 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. The 3rd respondent challenged the validity of the said order in this Court in Writ Petition No. 15132 of 1992. That Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 19-11-1992 on the ground that the 3rd respondent (petitioner-therein) had an alternative remedy of filing appeal. The 3rd respondent thereafter filed an appeal on 27-11-1992. On 17-12-1992 the appellate authority disposed of the appeal. However, one year thereafter the 2nd respondent revoked the order of suspension on 18-11-1993. The validity of that order was questioned in Writ Petition No. 17975 of 1993 by the petitioner in the said Writ Petition (appellant herein). The learned Single Judge, before whom the Writ Petition came up for hearing, dismissed the Writ Petition on 29-12-1993. The petitioner in that Writ Petition filed this Writ Appeal being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Sri P.S. Narayana, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that after the earlier order of the 2nd respondent placing the licence of the 3rd respondent tinder suspension was confirmed by the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the respondents.

We find considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The 2nd respondent earlier passed the order of suspension referring to the report of the Inspector of Police, VCCS, Tirupathi. That order, on appeal, was confirmed by the appellate authority. It would be appropriate to read the relevant portion of the order of the appellate authority which is as follows:

"The order of the Joint Collector, Chittoor, is only an interim order -suspension of the licence. Therefore, I see no reason to interefere in the matter now. The matter is remanded to the Joint Collector, Chittoor for following the procedure and disposal of the case according to law. The case should be disposed within one month from the date of receipt of this order."

From a reading of the order extracted above it is clear that the appellate authority has confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 2-11-1992, but directed that the case itself be disposed of within one month from the date of receipt of that order. Pursuant to that order the 2nd respondent ought to have disposed of the main case. Instead, the 2nd respondent has chosen to demolish the said order of the appellate authority by passing the impugned order. It must be pointed out that where the order of the original authority has been confirmed by the appellate authority, the original authority cannot be allowed to undo or demolish the order of the appellate authority by passing inconsistent order subsequently. This is what has been done by the Joint Collector by passing the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, however, lost sight of this aspect and dismissed the said writ petition. In view of the above position we are unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge appealed against. In the circumstances of this case, we consider it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the enquiry pending which the order of suspension was passed by him on 2-11-1992, within a period of two weeks from the date of our pronouncement. We make no order as to costs.