Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Navodaya Gas Agency Hpcl Lpg ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 October, 2022
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
WRIT PETITION NO.24806 OF 2010
O R D E R:
This writ petition has been filed to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.245/2010/CSC-2, dated 16.09.2010 of the 1st Respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing & Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980, Indian Explosive Act and Rules made thereunder and consequentially set aside the same.
2) A counter has been filed by the 2nd respondent.
3) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the Respondents. Perused the material available on record.
4) The grievance of the petitioner is that in the year, 1986, after fulfilling all conditions, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) has granted the distributorship of 2 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders to the petitioner under Scheduled Caste quota in Visakhapatnam I-Town area. Thereafter, the Explosives Department issued permanent licence in Form-F under licence bearing A.P.1815/LPG in favour of the petitioner for storage of compressed gas cylinders under the provisions of Indian Explosives Act and the Rules made thereunder. He was running the distributorship by storing the LPG cylinders in a godown situated in an area which was taken on lease by him from the Visakhapatnam Port Trust.
5) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, he constructed new godown at Sy.No.2/2, Godavari Ward, Ward No.1, Chilakapet, Visakhapatnam, after obtaining all the permissions from all the concerned Departments and the licence to store compressed gas in cylinders in Form-F and shifted storage godown to there. The said licence is being renewed from time to time by Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Hyderabad Sub-Circle, Hyderabad, who is the competent authority for renewal and at every renewal there 3 will be a personal inspection of the authority. Apart from the same, regular periodical inspections are being done by the officials of the Explosives Department apart from the officials from the Fire Department and these inspections are being undertaken to verify with reference to the safety measures and the provisions provided by the distributor. After satisfaction of the fulfillment of the safety measures in consonance with the specifications prescribed, the licence is being renewed.
6) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a representation has been made by some third party to the 1st respondent requesting for shifting of the godown of the petitioner from the present place since there are some residential houses nearby to his godown. When the petitioner constructed the godown, which was far away from there, and adjacent to his godown there are some government lands which have been encroached upon by some third parties and whose encroachments have been regularized by the government and now the said persons appears to have made a representation to the 1st respondent.
4
7) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to the representation of the third parties, the 1 st respondent has called for a report from the Assistant Supply Officer. Basing on the report of the Assistant Supply Officer, the present impugned notice, dated 16.09.2010, has been issued to the petitioner directing to shift the godown within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice and which was received by the petitioner on 21.09.2010. Aggrieved by the said impugned notice, the present writ petition is filed.
8) Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner submitted an application requesting to allot Ac.0-40 cents of vacant Government land available in Sy.No.3 at Marikavalasa Village, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal for construction of new godown to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, dated 21.09.2010. He further contends that the copy of the representation is referred in the impugned notice, is not made available to him. The report of the Assistant Supply Officer was also not supplied to him and the 5 adverse press clipping cannot be a basis for the District Collector to direct for shifting of the godown and therefore, the impugned proceedings are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, he prayed to allow the writ petition.
9) In the counter, the 2nd respondent admitted the allotment of distributorship by the HPCL in favour of the petitioner and contended that under condition No.11 of the licence issued, it has been stipulated that the licensee shall comply with any direction as may be given to him by the State Government or by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and or by the licensing authority in regard to purchase, sale, storage for sale and disposal of petroleum products purchased and stored by him. A notice has been issued to him by the licensing authority directing to shift the present godown premises and to procure suitable place for storage of LPG refills in the interest of inhabitants living in and around Chilakapeta area. But, the petitioner has failed to comply with the above directions issued by the licensing authority. 6
10) The 2nd respondent further contended that the notice was issued to the petitioner based on documentary evidence available and after conducting enquiries by the Departmental Officials. As he is always ready to move his godown, as contended by him, he has to procure suitable land in the interest of public. The application submitted by him requesting to allot Ac.0-40 cents of vacant Government land available in Sy.No.3 at Marikavalasa Village, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal for construction of new godown has been submitted to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam vide Lr.No.2456/2010/CSC2, dated 26.10.2010 of 2nd respondent is under examination. Therefore, the 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
11) Having heard both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, particularly from the impugned Notice dated 16.09.2010 issued by the first respondent, it appears that, basing on the representation of the residents of Chilakapeta area who are residing adjacent to the godown premises of the petitioner's gas agency, the 7 impugned notice is issued directing the petitioner to shift the godown premises from the existing place. The contention of the petitioner is that, when the petitioner purchased the land and constructed godown in the existing place, there are no residential houses nearby the godown. Adjacent to his godown, there are some government lands which have been encroached upon by some third parties and subsequently, the said encroachments are regularized by the Government and now, those persons have made a representation to the first respondent against the petitioner.
12) On perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that, after receipt of the representation from the residents of Chilakapeta locality, the first respondent sought report from the Assistant Supply Officer and considering the report submitted by the Assistant Supply Officer, the first respondent decided to direct the petitioner to shift his godown from the existing place.
8
13) On careful examination of the impugned notice, though it is styled as 'notice', it is an 'order' issued directing the petitioner to shift the godown from the existing place. It is settled law that, for issuing any order affecting the interest of any person, a notice has to be issued calling for the version from the affected party. Without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his version by issuing a show cause notice or giving opportunity for personal hearing, issuing orders by the first respondent directing to shift the godown from the existing place is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Nowhere, it is mentioned in the impugned notice that the petitioner was issued any show-cause notice or an opportunity was provided to him to put-forth his version. In view of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned Notice dated 16.09.2010 issued by the first respondent would not sustain in the eye of law and it is liable to be set-aside.
9
14) Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed with the following direction:
(i) The Notice in Rc.No.245/2010/CSC-2 dated 16.09.2010 issued by the first respondent is set-
aside.
15) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt.28.10.2022 PGR/SP 10 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND W.P.No.24806 OF 2010 Dt. 28.10.2022 PGR/SP