Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 601 (AP)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. M. Bhagavan Reddy

2012-07-13

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

body2012
Judgment : PinakiChandra Ghose, ACJ. 1. It appears, the writ petition was filed by a contractor, being Writ Petition No. 4162 of 2012 and the said writ petition was disposed by the Hon’ble Single Judge by order dated 23.4.2012 directing the 2nd appellant-authority to consider the matter afresh. His Lordship, while setting aside the impugned order recorded a finding, which is as follows: “Therefore, from the findings recorded in the impugned order, it is clear that short supply was the result of malpractice committed by the driver of the petitioner. No doubt, petitioner is responsible for the act of his driver, but when such malpractice is not directly attributable to the petitioner blacklisting of all the vehicles of the petitioner for period of two years appears to be harsh.” 2. It has been recorded by His Lordship that from the findings recorded in the impugned order, it is clear that short supply was the result of malpractice committed by the driver of the respondent-writ petitioner. No doubt, the respondent-writ petitioner is responsible for the act of his driver, but when such malpractice is not directly attributable to the writ petitioner, blacklisting of the vehicles of the respondent-writ petitioner for a period of two years appears to be harsh. His Lordship further held that various kinds of penalties are contemplated under the guidelines and further thought that such penalties have to be imposed by the authority judiciously. Under these circumstances, His Lordship has set aside the impugned order with a direction to the 2nd appellant-authority to consider the matter afresh. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellants on the ground that even if the matter is remanded and being heard out afresh, it would be evident from the order of the Court that the observations made by the Court may stand in the way of the 2nd appellant-authority to decide the matter afresh. 3. In the circumstances, we would only say that the 2nd appellant-authority shall consider the matter afresh without being influenced by the observations of the Court in any manner whatsoever. He shall be permitted to deal with the matter in accordance with the provisions and guidelines so framed by the appellants after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent-writ petitioner. In the circumstances, we would only say that the 2nd appellant-authority shall consider the matter afresh without being influenced by the observations of the Court in any manner whatsoever. He shall be permitted to deal with the matter in accordance with the provisions and guidelines so framed by the appellants after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent-writ petitioner. Further, it would be necessary that the steps should be taken by the 2nd appellant-authority judiciously in the matter while deciding the matter in question. 4. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.