(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of MANDAMUS declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Re. No. 199/2023/SA-1/ -12- 2023 dated 08.12.2023 imposing a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-and directing the 3rd respondent to discontinue the services of the petitioner as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to principles of natural justice, provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980. besides being violative of the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 0812.2023 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings Rc. No. 199/2023/S A-1/ -12-2023 dated 08.12.2023 and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 05.01.2024 passed in IA. No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No. 160 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition and pass)

1. This writ petition is filed questioning the orders passed by respondent no.-2 Joint Collector & Licensing Authority, Civil Supplies, Anakapalle District, vide proceedings Rc.No.199/2023/SA-1/ -12-2023, dated 08.12.2023 imposing a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- on the petitioner and directing respondent no.3- Indian Oil Corporation Limited, to discontinue the services of the petitioner as service provider.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has entered into a service provider agreement with respondent no.3-Indian Oil Corporation of India, on 05.01.2023 for providing equipment and skilled manpower to respondent no.3 at the Company owned and Company operated (COCO) Retail Outlet at Swagat, Thotada Junction, Anakapalli District and he not being a dealer of respondent no.3 corporation, he is not obligated to secure any statutory permissions form the competent authorities as it has not set-up and not running the retail outlet. It is the further case of the petitioner that, respondent no.2 issued a show-cause-notice to him on 07.10.2023 as to why appropriate action should not be initiated against him for contravening the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) order, 1980 (for short, ‘order,1980’). It is the further case of the petitioner that as per the show cause notice, the accused in Cr.No.199 of 2023 of Disha Women Police Station, Anakapalli, procured petrol in a plastic can, which he used for setting the house, car on fire with a view to kill the de facto complainant in that crime. It is further case of the petitioner that he submitted suitable explanation on 12.10.2023, however, the respondent no.2 passed the impugned orders, imposing penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- besides directing respondent no.3 to discontinue the petitioner immediately. The impugned order has been questioned in this writ petition.

3. The respondent no.2- Joint Collector, filed counter-affidavit denying the averments of the petition further contending that since there was contravention of Clause 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of supplies) Order, 1980, the authority empowered by clause 29 of the Order, 1980, issued show cause notice and as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, the impugned orders were passed. The writ petition is meritless and deserves dismissal.

4. Heard Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

5. Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that Order, 1980, nowhere authorizes the authorities to initiate action against the service provider. He would further contend that since the service provider had neither set-up nor running the retail outlet, stands outside the purview of Order, 1980 and the authorities, if at all, want to take any action for contravention of any of the clauses, can only take action against the persons that are responsible for running the retail outlet but not against any service provider. He, accordingly, prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings.

6. Whereas, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government for Civil Supplies, contended that clause 29 of the Order, 1980, empowers the authorities to initiate action and accordingly they issued Show cause notice under Clause 23 and as the explanation submitted is found not satisfactory, the impugned orders have been passed. There is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity nor violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The petitioner entered into a service provide agreement with respondent no.3- for providing equipment and skilled manpower at the Company Owned and Company Operated Retail Outlet.

9. The contravention alleged is that the accused in Crime No. 199 of 2023 of Disha Women Police Station, Anakapalli, confessed to have procured petrol from the subject retail outlet in a plastic can and hence there was infraction of clause 23 of the Order, 1980, as per which petroleum products to be delivered only into a Motor vehicle or against a supply card.

10. According to the respondent authorities, clause 29 of the Order, 1980, empowers them to take action against service provider. The said clause reads thus:

                  “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 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 of 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 an interim suspension of the licence, registration certificate or supply card for the duration of the proceeding 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, re- issue the licence or registration certificate or supply card to such person.”

11. The above clause merely speaks of cancellation of licence or Registration Certificate or Supply card. Not only in clause-29 but in entirety the said Order,1980, nowhere whispers of service provider. The service provider is only bound to act according to the agreement he enters with the retail outlet holder. It is thus clear that a service provider stands outside the purview of Order, 1980.

12. Administrative action must be backed by a specific statute, rule, regulation, or by-law passed by a competent legislature or delegated authority. If an authority acts beyond the scope of powers conferred on it by a statute or the constitution, such actions are considered ultra vires and are null and void.

13. Since Order, 1980 nowhere takes within its sweep a service provider, initiating action and imposing penalty on the service provider is ultra vires of the powers conferred on him by Order, 1980 and therefore, are null and void and thus the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

14. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned orders dated 08.12.2023 passed by respondent no.2 vide Rc.No.199/2023/SA-1/ -12-2023. However, this order does not in any way deter the authorities from taking action against the retail outlet, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.