B. Ganesh and Others Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanamakonda, Warangal and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
commercial - license - clause 27 of andhra pradesh petroleum products (licensing and regulation of supplies) order, 1980 - petitioner licensees challenged order of mandal revenue officer shifting place of business thirty kilometer away from residence of licensee - order made as per government policy cannot be set aside on objection raised by petitioner - held, mandal revenue officer empowered to issue such order. - - if the petitioners are unable to carryout their business at the place now allotted, they can as well give up their business. 15. therefore, for the foregoing reasons, i am of the considered view that the order passed by the first respondent is valid and well within his powers.order1. this writ petition was filed by three petitioners, who are retail kerosene licensees selling subsidised kerosene in the limits of municipal corporation, warangal, seeking a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order re. no.b1/ 336/99 dated 8-5-1999 passed by the first respondent, mandal revenue officer, hanmakonda, district warangal as illegal, arbitrary and to pass such further orders.2, the first respondent passed the impugned order in order to streamline the distribution of the kerosene and to rationalise the allotment of coupons for supply of kerosene and consequently shifted certain cards from one shop to another shop.therefore, the petitioners, who are allotted to the shop no.144-a were shifted to shop nos.7, 11 and 12 respectively. aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition was filed.3. it is submitted by the petitioners that they were granted licence nos.580, 579 and 311 by the mandal revenue officer, hanmakonda, in the year 1986 to sell subsidised kerosene to the card holders and allotted to the area of 4th battalion, mamnoor. from 1996 onwards, the petitioners are distributing kerosene allotted to them to the card holders by maintaining true and correct accounts, and there was no complaint whatsoever either in distribution of kerosene or maintenance of records. it is further submitted that the area to which the petitioners were allotted fall within the jurisdiction of gram panchayat, thimmapur. it is further submitted that the system of coupons was introduced in municipal area, warangal, in the month of january, 1999 and the dealers and consumers residing in warangal municipal corporation were given coupons. while the petitioners were going business in their area allotted to them, the first respondent issued the impugned proceedings shifting the petitioners from the area of gram panchayat to the corporation area i.e., diesel colony, kazipet, dargah, jubilee market of kazipet which is situated about 30 kms., away from the area where the petitioners are now doing their business. they further submitted that the intention and the scope of the impugned order is only to adjust the quota among the dealers and hawkers situated in the municipal corporation area and the petitioners shall not be equated with that of the dealers and hawkers situated in the municipal corporation area. however, they made representation to the mandal revenue officer and the joint collector to reconsider the matter. it is further contended that under the a.p. petroleum products order, 1980, the first respondent has no authority to transfer or shift the area of business of thedealer or hawker from one place to another and as such the impugned order shifting the place of business of the petitioners viz., from 4th battalion of thimmapur gram panchayat i.e., shop no.144-a to shop nos.7, 11 and 12 of the diesel colony, kazipet, dargah and jubilee market, kazipet is without power and jurisdiction and hence, liable to be set aside.4. it is further submitted by the petitioners that they are residents of naidu petrol pump area nearer to 4th battalion, where they carry their business and the diesel colony, kazipet dargah and the jubilee market, kazipet are situated about 30 kms. and, therefore, it is very difficult for them to carry on the business at the places allotted to them, which may cause a lot of inconvenience and hardship. therefore, they submitted a representation on 12-5-1999 to the second respondent, joint collector, requesting him to continue them in the present place of business and it is still under consideration. therefore, they filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be set aside.5. in reply to the above said assertions made by the petitioners, the mandal revenue officer, hanmakonda, first respondent in the writ petition, filed counter affidavit admitting that the petitioners 1 and 2 were given retail kerosene dealer (hawker) licences pursuant to the order of this court in cc no.661 of 1996 dated 3-7-1996 by specifying the place of business as within the area of municipal corporation, warangal. the third petitioner was also issued the said licence pursuant to the orders of this court in writ petition no.14750 of 1995. it is further submitted that though the licences were issued to the petitioners as stated above, there was no scope at that time to adjust the petitioners in the city by attaching them to any fair price shop in the city andtherefore, as a stop gap arrangement they were attached to the fair price shop no. 144-a located at the campus of iv battalion, apsp, mamnoor. but as a policy of the government, the kerosene hawkers are permitted only in warangal city area and they are now shifted to city area, which is essential as they are issued licences to carry on the business within the area of municipal corporation, warangal. it is further submitted that the petitioners were issued retail kerosene licences as hawker to carry-out the business within the area of municipal corporation, warangal and with a view to implement the orders of this court, they were attached to the fair price shop no.144-a; but infact, they are permitted only in warangal city area as per orders of the government in memo no.3736/a2/ os.ii/90 f&a;(cs) department dated 16-1-1990. thus the shifting of their business from mamnoor to the municipal corporation area is not illegal or arbitrary.6. with regard to the assertion of the petitioners that they are residents of naidu petrol bunk area, nearer to iv battalion where they have been carrying the business, the respondents submitted that place of business of the dealer-hawker is not the criteria for dealing in the business, but it is place of licenced premises which is the criteria. the respondents further submitted that the claim of the petitioners that they are residents of naidu petrol bunk area is false inasmuch as in writ petition no.11679 of 1995 and cc no.661 of 1996 pursuant to the orders therein, the petitioners were granted licences. the residence of the first petitioner is described as rangasaipet and that of the second petitioner is orus which is within the city limits and the residence of the third petitioner is described as orus locality, within warangal municipal limits.7. with regard to the contention of the petitioners that the distance between the place of residence and the new businessplace is 30 kms. and they are to carry the kerosene in their pushcarts, which causes lot of inconvenience and hardship to them is not correct and as per the guidelines issued by the government in g.o. rt. no.419 dated 19-4-1983 and the instructions of the director, civil supplies in their d.o. lr. no.e2/664/94, dated 14-6-1994, the hawkers should sell kerosene at a specific place of business by stationing themselves nearer to the fair price shop, cards of which are attached to them and that they should not be mobile. it is stated that to that effect notices were also issued by the first respondent herein in b1/31140/95 dated 25-4-1996 and thus the contention of the petitioner is not only untenable but also in contravention of condition 8 of the licence issued to them.8. it is further submitted by the respondents that the impugned order was already implemented from the month of may, 1999 and the petitioners were carrying out their business at the fair price shop to which they are shifted and are also submitting their monthly accounts. the respondents further submit that the shifting was not made in case of the petitioners only, shifting orders were issued in respect of 23 licence holders. they further submitted that this impugned proceeding was issued consequent to the introduction of coupon system in the month of january, 1999 for supply of subsidised kerosene to the ratio of quantity of allotment of kerosene between hawkers to hawkers and hawkers to dealers attached to each fair price shop could not be maintained to that of pre-january, 1999 position, due to the non-maintenance of ratio between ration cards attached to each fair price shop dealer-hawker and the coupons issued for the purpose of supply of kerosene out of such attached cards; that the kerosene hawkers represented about the inequality of quota and requested for rationalisation of quota among all the hawkers and dealers, through their representations dated 3-3-1999 and 30-3-1999. therefore, after considering theabove representations made by the president and vice-president, kerosene retail dealers (hawkers) welfare association, hanmakonda, it was decided to rationalise quota of kerosene and as per the instructions and guidelines of the joint collector, warangal, roc no.cc/110/99 dated 17-4-1999, an exercise was made and the quotas among the hawkers -dealers were rationalised to the extent practicable and therefore, such orders were issued.9. it is also submitted that theimpugned order was passed as per the instructions of the second respondent herein and therefore, the shifting of the petitioners place of business is quite justified, sustainable and in accordance with law. therefore, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.10. based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent - mandal revenue officer has no power to pass the impugned order as per the andhra pradesh petroleum products (licensing and regulation of supplies) order, 1980 (for short the state order, 1980), which was enacted under the g.o. ms. no.562 f&a; (cs-ii) dated 28th october, 1980. clause 27 of the state order, 1980 empowers the collector or the joint collector to pass appropriate orders shifting the place of business of the petitioner, therefore, the mandal revenue officer has no power to pass the impugned order and as such it is liable to be set aside.11. the learned government pleader for civil supplies submits that the licences were issued to the petitioners by the mandal revenue officer and as such he has got the power to shift the place of business of the petitioners and that too it was done in accordance with the instructions of the joint collector dated 17-4-1999. therefore, oncethe mandal revenue officer has got the power to issue the licences, he has also got the power to shift the licensed premises also. she further submits that the licences were issued to the petitioners in from 'b' of the slate order, 1980, which stated that the place of petitioners business is within the area of municipal corporation, warangal. therefore, the petitioners can not say that they are doing their business in rural areas i.e., the grain panchayat - 4th battalion and, therefore, they can not be shifted to the area of municipal corporation, contrary to the conditions of licence issued' to them. therefore, the order passed by the mandal revenue officer who is the licensing authority is valid and in accordance with the provisions of the state order, 1980. clause 11 of form b under the state order, 1980 makes it mandatory that the licensee shall comply with any direction as may be given to him by the state government or by the commissioner of civil supplies and or by the licensing authority in regard to purchase, sale, storage for sale and disposal of petroleum products purchased and stored by him and in regard to the language in which the registers, returns, price-boards receipts or invoice mentioned in condition 9 shall be written and the authentication and maintenance of the register mentioned in condition 3. therefore, as per the condition of the licence, the licensing authority has got the power to control the affairs of the licensees.12. after considering the submissions of both the counsel for the petitioners and the learned government pleader for civil supplies, it is manifest that the licences were granted in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the orders of this court in contempt case and writ petition, and a stop gap arrangement was made and they were attached to fair price no.144-a located at the campus of 4th battalion, andhra pradesh special police, mamnoor, i.e., the area of municipal corporation, warangal.it is specifically mentioned in their licences that the licences were issued to the petitioners to do their business within the area of municipal corporation, warangal. the place of residence of the licensees is of no consequence, but it is the conduct of the business which is of paramount importance. therefore, the distance of 30 kms. between the place of residence and the site of business cannot be considered to be a criterion to hold the impugned order invalid. that apart, as per the conditions of the licence, they should not be mobile, they should sell the kerosene at a specific place of business by stationing themselves nearer to the fair price shop, cards of which are attached to them. the impugned order was issued by the government as a matter of policy decision taken by the government, more so to adjust the coupons as practicable as possible between the dealers and as per the instructions issued by the government from time to time. therefore, it is the convenience of the card holders which is of prima importance and not the petitioners. if the petitioners are unable to carryout their business at the place now allotted, they can as well give up their business. therefore, for the foregoing reasons, i am of the considered view that the order passed by the mandal revenue officer is within his powers as licensing authority. it is not correct to state that the petitioners were shifted from rural areas to the municipal corporation area. as submitted by the respondents, the quota of hawkers was rationalised as a policy decision of the government within the municipal corporation area of warangal and the petitioners were allotted 4th battalion as a stop gap arrangement to implement the orders of this court. but it was specifically mentioned in the licences that they have to do business within the municipal corporation area. therefore, by way of adjustment, they were shifted to the original place of their business i.e., the municipal corporation area of warangal. thus the order issued by the licensing authority i.e., the mandal revenue officer,exercising the powers conferred on him under the state order, 1980 is valid, proper and sustainable in law.13. the decision to shift the place of business of the petitioners from shop no.144-a to shop nos.7, 11 and 12 was ordered on the basis of the representations made by the president of kerosene retail dealers (hawkers) welfare association, hanmakonda, for rationalisation of quota among the hawkers and dealers; therefore, as many as 23 licence holders were-shifted from one place to another. as such it can not be said that the decision taken by the licensing authority is arbitrary and contrary to the state order, 1980.14. as seen from the various clauses of the state order, 1980, the entire supervision of distribution of kerosene is under the control of the mandal revenue officer; and for any order passed by him, appeal lies to the joint collector. therefore, it can not be said that the mandal revenue officer has no power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. further, the petitioners did not chose to file their licences to ascertain whether the licences were granted to conduct the business either in the rural areas or within the area of municipal corporation, warangal. however, believing the statement made by the learned government pleader for civil supplies, it can be deemed that they were granted licences to conduct the business within the limits of municipal corporation, warangal, and they were authorized to sell the kerosene in warangal city.15. therefore, for the foregoing reasons, i am of the considered view that the order passed by the first respondent is valid and well within his powers. thus the writ petition deserves no consideration. it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This writ petition was filed by three petitioners, who are retail kerosene licensees selling subsidised kerosene in the limits of Municipal Corporation, Warangal, seeking a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order Re. No.B1/ 336/99 dated 8-5-1999 passed by the first respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda, District Warangal as illegal, arbitrary and to pass such further orders.

2, The first respondent passed the impugned order in order to streamline the distribution of the kerosene and to rationalise the allotment of coupons for supply of kerosene and consequently shifted certain cards from one shop to another shop.Therefore, the petitioners, who are allotted to the shop No.144-A were shifted to shop Nos.7, 11 and 12 respectively. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition was filed.

3. It is submitted by the petitioners that they were granted licence Nos.580, 579 and 311 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda, in the year 1986 to sell subsidised kerosene to the card holders and allotted to the area of 4th Battalion, Mamnoor. From 1996 onwards, the petitioners are distributing kerosene allotted to them to the card holders by maintaining true and correct accounts, and there was no complaint whatsoever either in distribution of kerosene or maintenance of records. It is further submitted that the area to which the petitioners were allotted fall within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Thimmapur. It is further submitted that the system of coupons was introduced in Municipal Area, Warangal, in the month of January, 1999 and the dealers and consumers residing in Warangal Municipal Corporation were given coupons. While the petitioners were going business in their area allotted to them, the first respondent issued the impugned proceedings shifting the petitioners from the area of Gram Panchayat to the Corporation Area i.e., Diesel Colony, Kazipet, Dargah, Jubilee Market of Kazipet which is situated about 30 KMs., away from the area where the petitioners are now doing their business. They further submitted that the intention and the scope of the impugned order is only to adjust the quota among the dealers and hawkers situated in the Municipal Corporation area and the petitioners shall not be equated with that of the dealers and hawkers situated in the Municipal Corporation area. However, they made representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer and the joint Collector to reconsider the matter. It is further contended that under the A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980, the first respondent has no authority to transfer or shift the area of business of thedealer or hawker from one place to another and as such the impugned order shifting the place of business of the petitioners viz., from 4th Battalion of Thimmapur Gram Panchayat i.e., shop No.144-A to Shop Nos.7, 11 and 12 of the Diesel Colony, Kazipet, Dargah and Jubilee Market, Kazipet is without power and jurisdiction and hence, liable to be set aside.

4. It is further submitted by the petitioners that they are residents of Naidu Petrol Pump area nearer to 4th Battalion, where they carry their business and the Diesel Colony, Kazipet Dargah and the Jubilee Market, Kazipet are situated about 30 KMs. and, therefore, it is very difficult for them to carry on the business at the places allotted to them, which may cause a lot of inconvenience and hardship. Therefore, they submitted a representation on 12-5-1999 to the second respondent, Joint Collector, requesting him to continue them in the present place of business and it is still under consideration. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be set aside.

5. In reply to the above said assertions made by the petitioners, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda, first respondent in the writ petition, filed counter affidavit admitting that the petitioners 1 and 2 were given Retail Kerosene Dealer (Hawker) Licences pursuant to the order of this Court in CC No.661 of 1996 dated 3-7-1996 by specifying the place of business as within the area of Municipal Corporation, Warangal. The third petitioner was also issued the said licence pursuant to the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.14750 of 1995. It is further submitted that though the licences were issued to the petitioners as stated above, there was no scope at that time to adjust the petitioners in the city by attaching them to any Fair Price Shop in the city andtherefore, as a stop gap arrangement they were attached to the Fair Price Shop No. 144-A located at the Campus of IV Battalion, APSP, Mamnoor. But as a policy of the Government, the kerosene hawkers are permitted only in Warangal City area and they are now shifted to city area, which is essential as they are issued licences to carry on the business within the area of Municipal Corporation, Warangal. It is further submitted that the petitioners were issued Retail Kerosene Licences as hawker to carry-out the business within the area of Municipal Corporation, Warangal and with a view to implement the orders of this Court, they were attached to the Fair Price Shop No.144-A; but infact, they are permitted only in Warangal City Area as per orders of the Government in Memo No.3736/A2/ OS.II/90 F&A;(CS) Department dated 16-1-1990. Thus the shifting of their business from Mamnoor to the Municipal Corporation area is not illegal or arbitrary.

6. With regard to the assertion of the petitioners that they are residents of Naidu Petrol Bunk area, nearer to IV Battalion where they have been carrying the business, the respondents submitted that place of business of the dealer-hawker is not the criteria for dealing in the business, but it is place of licenced premises which is the criteria. The respondents further submitted that the claim of the petitioners that they are residents of Naidu Petrol Bunk area is false inasmuch as in Writ Petition No.11679 of 1995 and CC No.661 of 1996 pursuant to the orders therein, the petitioners were granted licences. The residence of the first petitioner is described as Rangasaipet and that of the second petitioner is Orus which is within the city limits and the residence of the third petitioner is described as Orus Locality, within Warangal Municipal Limits.

7. With regard to the contention of the petitioners that the distance between the place of residence and the new businessplace is 30 KMs. and they are to carry the kerosene in their pushcarts, which causes lot of inconvenience and hardship to them is not correct and as per the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O. Rt. No.419 dated 19-4-1983 and the instructions of the Director, Civil Supplies in their D.O. Lr. No.E2/664/94, dated 14-6-1994, the hawkers should sell kerosene at a specific place of business by stationing themselves nearer to the fair price shop, cards of which are attached to them and that they should not be mobile. It is stated that to that effect notices were also issued by the first respondent herein in B1/31140/95 dated 25-4-1996 and thus the contention of the petitioner is not only untenable but also in contravention of condition 8 of the licence issued to them.

8. It is further submitted by the respondents that the impugned order was already implemented from the Month of May, 1999 and the petitioners were carrying out their business at the Fair Price Shop to which they are shifted and are also submitting their monthly accounts. The respondents further submit that the shifting was not made in case of the petitioners only, shifting orders were issued in respect of 23 licence holders. They further submitted that this impugned proceeding was issued consequent to the introduction of coupon system in the month of January, 1999 for supply of subsidised kerosene to the ratio of quantity of allotment of kerosene between hawkers to hawkers and hawkers to dealers attached to each Fair Price Shop could not be maintained to that of Pre-January, 1999 position, due to the non-maintenance of ratio between ration cards attached to each Fair Price Shop dealer-hawker and the coupons issued for the purpose of supply of kerosene out of such attached cards; that the kerosene hawkers represented about the inequality of quota and requested for rationalisation of quota among all the hawkers and dealers, through their representations dated 3-3-1999 and 30-3-1999. Therefore, after considering theabove representations made by the President and Vice-President, Kerosene Retail Dealers (Hawkers) Welfare Association, Hanmakonda, it was decided to rationalise quota of kerosene and as per the instructions and guidelines of the Joint Collector, Warangal, ROC No.CC/110/99 dated 17-4-1999, an exercise was made and the quotas among the hawkers -dealers were rationalised to the extent practicable and therefore, such orders were issued.

9. It is also submitted that theimpugned order was passed as per the instructions of the second respondent herein and therefore, the shifting of the petitioners place of business is quite justified, sustainable and in accordance with law. Therefore, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

10. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent - Mandal Revenue Officer has no power to pass the impugned order as per the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short the State Order, 1980), which was enacted under the G.O. Ms. No.562 F&A; (CS-II) dated 28th October, 1980. Clause 27 of the State Order, 1980 empowers the Collector or the Joint Collector to pass appropriate orders shifting the place of business of the petitioner, therefore, the Mandal Revenue Officer has no power to pass the impugned order and as such it is liable to be set aside.

11. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that the licences were issued to the petitioners by the Mandal Revenue Officer and as such he has got the power to shift the place of business of the petitioners and that too it was done in accordance with the instructions of the Joint Collector dated 17-4-1999. Therefore, oncethe Mandal Revenue Officer has got the power to issue the licences, he has also got the power to shift the licensed premises also. She further submits that the licences were issued to the petitioners in From 'B' of the Slate Order, 1980, which stated that the place of petitioners business is within the area of Municipal Corporation, Warangal. Therefore, the petitioners can not say that they are doing their business in rural areas i.e., the Grain Panchayat - 4th Battalion and, therefore, they can not be shifted to the area of Municipal Corporation, contrary to the conditions of licence issued' to them. Therefore, the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer who is the licensing authority is valid and in accordance with the provisions of the State Order, 1980. Clause 11 of Form B under the State Order, 1980 makes it mandatory that the licensee shall comply with any direction as may be given to him by the State Government or by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and or by the licensing authority in regard to purchase, sale, storage for sale and disposal of petroleum products purchased and stored by him and in regard to the language in which the registers, returns, price-boards receipts or invoice mentioned in condition 9 shall be written and the authentication and maintenance of the register mentioned in condition 3. Therefore, as per the condition of the licence, the licensing authority has got the power to control the affairs of the licensees.

12. After considering the submissions of both the Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, it is manifest that the licences were granted in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the orders of this Court in Contempt Case and Writ Petition, and a stop gap arrangement was made and they were attached to Fair Price No.144-A located at the campus of 4th Battalion, Andhra Pradesh Special Police, Mamnoor, i.e., the area of Municipal Corporation, Warangal.It is specifically mentioned in their licences that the licences were issued to the petitioners to do their business within the area of Municipal Corporation, Warangal. The place of residence of the licensees is of no consequence, but it is the conduct of the business which is of paramount importance. Therefore, the distance of 30 KMs. between the place of residence and the site of business cannot be considered to be a criterion to hold the impugned order invalid. That apart, as per the conditions of the licence, they should not be mobile, they should sell the kerosene at a specific place of business by stationing themselves nearer to the Fair Price Shop, cards of which are attached to them. The impugned order was issued by the Government as a matter of policy decision taken by the Government, more so to adjust the coupons as practicable as possible between the dealers and as per the instructions issued by the Government from time to time. Therefore, it is the convenience of the card holders which is of prima importance and not the petitioners. If the petitioners are unable to carryout their business at the place now allotted, they can as well give up their business. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer is within his powers as licensing authority. It is not correct to state that the petitioners were shifted from rural areas to the Municipal Corporation area. As submitted by the respondents, the quota of hawkers was rationalised as a policy decision of the Government within the Municipal Corporation area of Warangal and the petitioners were allotted 4th Battalion as a stop gap arrangement to implement the orders of this Court. But it was specifically mentioned in the licences that they have to do business within the Municipal Corporation area. Therefore, by way of adjustment, they were shifted to the original place of their business i.e., the Municipal Corporation area of Warangal. Thus the order issued by the licensing authority i.e., the Mandal Revenue Officer,exercising the powers conferred on him under the State Order, 1980 is valid, proper and sustainable in law.

13. The decision to shift the place of business of the petitioners from Shop No.144-A to Shop Nos.7, 11 and 12 was ordered on the basis of the representations made by the President of Kerosene Retail Dealers (Hawkers) Welfare Association, Hanmakonda, for rationalisation of quota among the hawkers and dealers; therefore, as many as 23 licence holders were-shifted from one place to another. As such it can not be said that the decision taken by the licensing authority is arbitrary and contrary to the State Order, 1980.

14. As seen from the various clauses of the State Order, 1980, the entire supervision of distribution of kerosene is under the control of the Mandal Revenue Officer; and for any order passed by him, appeal lies to the Joint Collector. Therefore, it can not be said that the Mandal Revenue Officer has no power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Further, the petitioners did not chose to file their licences to ascertain whether the licences were granted to conduct the business either in the rural areas or within the area of Municipal Corporation, Warangal. However, believing the statement made by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, it can be deemed that they were granted licences to conduct the business within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Warangal, and they were authorized to sell the kerosene in Warangal city.

15. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the first respondent is valid and well within his powers. Thus the writ petition deserves no consideration. It is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.