Lakshmana Rao, J. - (1.) THIS Writ Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of Andhra Pradesh aad two others against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16th July 1987, whereby the learned single Judge quashed the order of the Chief Rationing Officer (2nd appellant herein) dated 2nd June, 1987 suspending the licence of the respondent (writ petitioner), a firm running a petrol bunk situate at Lakdikapool, until completion of inquiry under Section 6A of the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955. The impugned order of the 2nd appellant dated 2nd June 1987 invoked the provisions of Clause 29 (2) of the AP Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980, hereinafter referred to as 'the Order' The respondent challenged this order' dated 2nd June 1987 by way of an appeal before the 1st appellant (Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of AP) But the appeal was also dismissed by an order dated 10-6-87. The impugned order of the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad reads as under: "A CA case was booked by the Vigilance Cell Authorities Civil Supplies Department, against M/s Radha Automobiles, 6-1-1072, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad who are MS and HSD Dealers possessing Licence No. C3/87/CRO/MS& HSD/81-82 HYU, valid upto 31-12-1989 for adulteration of kerosine" oil with MS and HSD to get illegal gain and for not maintaining the records up-to-date and also failed to exhibit the price list board vide reference 1st read above-with a request to confiscate the stocks seized to Government which was filed in the Hon'ble Court of the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad huge quantities of kerosene oil was also seized from the premises The analysis report received also indicates that the sample of MS does not match specifications. The Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad, in his interim orders ordered that the seized stock of kerosene oil be disposed of through public distribution system pending disposal of the case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Regarding the disposal of MS and HSD it is ordered that the concerned oil company, ie. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited are asked to take back the seized stock and pay the amount to the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad, being the sample is analysed. The MS is found adulterated and the MS & HSD Dealer M/s Radha Automobiles have violated the condition 3(i) 5, 6(i), 8(1) and (2) of the licence issued to them under the AP Petroleum Products. (L& RS) Order 1980, their licence bearing No C3/87/CRO/MS & HSD/81-82/HYU is hereby suspended under Clause 29(2) of the AP Petroleum Products (L &RS) Ordet 1980 until further orders and finalisation of 6-A proceedings. The dealer is permitted to Appeal on the orders of the undersigned to Commissioner of Civil Supplies within 30 days from the date of receipt of this orders". We may mention that till today no proceedings have been initiated for prosecuting the dealer (respondent herein) nor has any proceeding been initiated inder the provisions of Clause 29 of the Order. Clause 29 of the Order road as under: "29. Cancellation of Licence or Registration Certificate or supply Card in certain other cases: - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clamse 28 where a licensee or holder of a registration certificate or supply card has been convicted by a Court of Law in respect of any af the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955), the licensing authority may by order in writing cancel his licence or certificate or supply card issued under this order. (2) Pending action as in sub-clause (1) above, the licensing authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing, order interim suspension of the licence, registration certificate or supply card for the duration of the proceedings in the Court: Provided that where such conviction is set aside in appeal or revision, the licensing authority shall, on application by the person whose licence or registration certificate or supply card has been cancelled reissue the licence or registration certificate or supply card to such person." It may be noticed that sub-clause (1) of Clause 29 of the order can come into play only if the person has been convicted by a court of law in respect of any of the provisions of ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner has not even been prosecuted. Therefore, sub-clause (2) of Clause 29 cannot be invo. ked.
(2.) BEFORE the learned signle Judge reliance was placed on clause (2) of Section 28 of the Order. We may, therefore, examine the provisions of Clause 28. Clause 28 reads as under: "28. Contravention of conditions of licence/Registration certificate/Supply Card/Provision of the Order -(1) No holder of a licence or registration certificate or supply card learned under this order or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene attempt or abet the contravention of any of the provisions of the order or any of the conditions of the registration certificate or any disections issued ther under if any such holder or his agent or the servant or any person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the said terms and conditions may be caucwlled or suspended for such period as may be specified by an order in writing by the licensing authority; Provided that no order shall be made under this clause the licensee or the holder of registiation certificate has been given a reasonable opportunity for representing his case cm writing and also having heard in person against the proposed cancellation. (2) Pending action as ia sub-clause (1) above, the licesing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing order interim suspension of the liecance, registration certi. ficate or supply card". A bare look at sub-clause (2) of Clause 28 will show that this sub-clause can be resorted to only pending action as contemplated in sub-clause (1) Again, no action till today has been initiated against the respondeat under sub-clause (1) of Clause 28. There fore, Clause 28 could also not be resorted to The only proceedings, which' were peading, were proceedings uader Section 6A of the Essental Commodities Act. We have nothing to do with the proceedings a contemplated by the aforesaid Order. The learned single Judge, therefore, was constrained to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd appellant dated 2nd June 1987 as confirmed by the 1st appellant So neither Clause 28 nor Clause 29, which was resorted to, can be invoked by the appellants. The learned single Judge was right in quashing the impugned order dated 2nd June, 1987 passed by the 2nd appellant. The Writ Appeal faus and is dismissed. No costs.";