Shavan Agencies vs State of Tamil Nadu

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. V. Balakrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner is an Agent of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., holding a licence bearing Registration No. 13/78-79 issued under Clause 3 of the

Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade Order) 1973 (herein after referred to as the Order). On 30.4.1990, the third respondent ordered

interim suspension of wholesale licence alleging that the petitioner agency had failed to maintain accounts for the excess withdrawal from the Indian

Oil Corporation and subsequently, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the 4th respondent, on 24.7.1990, for the contravention under

condition No. 4586 of T.N.K.(R.T) Order, 1973. As against the said order of cancellation, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the

third respondent, who had remitted the matter for fresh enquiry by extending the interim orders to be continued. The petitioner had also preferred a

writ petition in W.P. No. 9885 of 1991 before this Hon''ble Court and obtained a stay of the cancellation. Despite the grant of stay of cancellation

of the licence, the petitioner was not supplied with kerosene. While that being so, the fourth respondent had issued a show cause notice in

proceedings E/2118/90, dated 21.6.1991, for the contravention under condition No. 5 and 6 of the T.N.K. (R.T) Order, 1973, under Clause

7(4) and 7(5) of the T.N.K.(R.T) Order 1973. Though an explanation was offered by the petitioner to the said show cause notice, the fourth

respondent had cancelled the licence and forfeited the security deposit. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the

third respondent, which was also dismissed by proceedings in N.7/5506/92, dated 30.9.1992. As against the said order of the 3rd respondent, a

revision was preferred before the second respondent, which was also dismissed, confirming the orders of the 3rd and the 4th respondents.

Aggrieved by the said order, a further revision was filed by the petitioner under Clause 27(1)(f) of the T.N.K.(R.T) Order, 1973, before the first

respondent, which was also dismissed confirming the orders of the respondents 2 to 4. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed, invoking

Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising various grounds as stated therein.

It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that with regard to similar offences, like those alleged against the

petitioner, committed by other dealers, the order of cancellation of the licence have been modified to forfeiture of security deposit.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner had also pointed out that in similar circumstances this Court had passed an order, dated 5.2.2007, in

W.P. No. 274 of 1999, setting aside the impugned order of the revisional authority and remitting the matter back for reconsideration permitting the

petitioner to put forward his case before the Government.

Mr. V. Manoharan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has no objection for this Court to pass a similar order.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties concerned and without going into the merits of the case, the

impugned order, dated 08.02.1999, passed by the first respondent, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh

consideration.

In such circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to place his contentions before the first respondent by way of a representation within a period

of two weeks from today and on such representation being made, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders, on

merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.