Judgment : The petitioner is an LPG distributor of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short ‘the Oil Company’). Respondent No.2 is the licensing authority under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the Control Order’). He is also the disciplinary authority who is empowered to cancel or suspend the license, if the licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes, attempts or abets the contravention of any of the provisions of the Control Order. In exercise of his powers under Clause-28(2) of the Control Order, respondent No.2 has suspended the petitioner’s LPG distribution license pending enquiry. Writ Petition No.14334 of 2013 filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by this Court by order, dated 07.06.2013 and a direction was given to respondent No.2 to complete the enquiry and pass a final order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In response to the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner submitted its explanation. After receiving the explanation, respondent No.2 has held personal hearing on 04.05.2013 and 24.06.2013. After completion of the hearing, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order, wherein he has mentioned that after hearing the petitioner on the said two dates, he has decided to refer the matter to the Oil Company “for taking a decision at their level and the decision taken by the Company authorities to be implemented after its communication to this office.” This order of respondent No.2 is questioned by the petitioner in this Writ Petition mainly on the ground that respondent No.2 has committed a serious error in leaving the decision to the Oil Company. I have heard Sri K. Ananda Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Clause-28 of the Control Order confers power on the licensing authority (respondent No.2 in this case) to pass an order suspending or cancelling the license in case of contravention, etc., of any of the conditions of license or any directions issued thereunder by the licensing authority or any person acting on his behalf. This Clause does not leave any scope for respondent No.2 to assign or delegate this power to an outside agency including the Oil Company. This Clause does not leave any scope for respondent No.2 to assign or delegate this power to an outside agency including the Oil Company. When a Statute confers a power on a specified authority, it shall alone exercise such power unless the power of delegation is conferred on such authority. The Control Order does not confer any such power on respondent No.2 to delegate the power inhered in him in Clause-28 thereof. In the absence of any such power, involving the Oil Company in the decision making process constitutes abdication of the functions of the licensing authority in favour of an outside agency. Such an action cannot stand the scrutiny of the Courts. Respondent No.2 is bound to take a decision by himself without being guided or assisted by any other agency including the Oil Company. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside with the direction to respondent No.2 to pass an order on his own application of mind, without involvement of the Oil Company, as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, the W.P.M.Ps., if any, pending are disposed of infructuous.