Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Abburi Venkata Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 May, 2024
APHC010233862024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 11716/2024
Between:
Abburi Venkata Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. O M R LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following:
Rule Nisi. Call for Records. Notice returnable in four weeks. I.A.no.1 of 2024:
Assailing the suspension order passed by the 3rd respondent in RC.No.137/2022/B2 dated 08.05.2024, the above writ petition is filed. W.P.No.11716 of 2024
Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order of suspension passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Guntur i.e., the 3rd respondent, is contrary to the Full Bench judgment in Tappers Co- operative Societies, Maddur vs. Superintendent of Excise, Mahaboobnagar reported in 1984 (2) APLJ Page 1.
Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise would submit that since the petitioner violated the conditions mentioned in B2 Bar license, case in crime No.81 of 2024 under Section 34(a) read with 50B (b), 36(1) (b&c) and 41 of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 was registered against the petitioner in Ongole II Town PS. He would also submit that separate show cause notice dated 08.05.2024 was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation.
As seen from the suspension order, on 07.05.2024, the Flying Squad Team, B-shift, 108-Ongole Assembly Constituency, Ongole proceeded to M/s. AVR's Neo Restaurant & Bar and found two persons by names Darsi Karteek and Tatikonda Harish Babu along with motor cycle. The team found a bag containing 48 Mansion House Brandy each 180ml. The accused confessed that the said liquor bottles were purchased from the AVR's Neo Restaurant & W.P.No.11716 of 2024 Bar. On inspecting the Bar premises, the team found bags containing 236 Mansion House Brandy each 180ml and 48 Royal Palace Brandy each 180ml of worth Rs.69,680/-. Basing on the said allegation, case in Crime No.81 of 2024 was registered and 2B license was suspended pending the enquiry.
Section 31 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 postulates that the authority granting license or permit may cancel or suspend irrespective of the period to which the license or permit relates in the circumstances under (a) or (b) or (c) or(d) or (e). The proviso would clarify that the license or permit shall be cancelled or suspended unless the holder thereof is given an opportunity of making his representation against the action proposed.
The said proviso is considered by Full Bench of the Court in case of Tappers Cooperative Societies, Maddur vs. Superintendent of Excise, Mahaboobnagar (1984(2) APLJ Page 1). In Para 42, it was observed that the incidental or ancillary power cannot be exercised in a routine way or in the matter of course. The licensing authority is bound to exercise the discretion reasonably, bonafide and without negligence and without considering the circumstances of the case when interim suspension is necessary.
The Division Bench of Composite High Court in Goka Bujjamma vs Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Srikakulam and Others reported in 2003 (2) ALT 549, while placing reliance upon the judgment in K. Srinivasa W.P.No.11716 of 2024 Reddy v. Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise reported in 2002 (1) ALT 108, observed as follows:
"the proviso appended to Section 31(1) of the Act clearly states that no licence or permit shall be cancelled or suspended unless the holder thereof is given an opportunity of making his representation against the action proposed. In the instant case, the 1st respondent neither gave any notice to the appellants nor gave them any opportunity to make their representation against the action proposed. The 1st respondent, instead of proposing the action of suspending the licence, has passed a final order suspending the licence of the appellants, which, in our opinion, is illegal and against the provisions of Section 31(1) of the Act."
The case at hand, as pointed out by learned Senior Counsel, the authorities failed to exercise the powers judicially and rationally. Apart from that, the suspension order does not contain period of suspension.
In view of the same, this Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that the suspension order dated 06.05.2024 is liable to be suspended.
Accordingly, the impugned order of suspension passed by the 3rd respondent vide RC.No.137/2022/B2 dated 08.05.2024 is hereby suspended.
___________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI,J KAS