SHAVAN AGENCIES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V. Balakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.