Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Goka Bujjamma vs Prohibition And Excise Superintendent ... on 8 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALT549
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan, I. Venkatanarayana
JUDGMENT AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. The writ petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. The writ petition was filed by the appellant for declaration that the proceedings dated 10-1-2002 issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Srikakulam in suspending the licence of the appellant's wine shop and as confirmed by the second respondent in proceedings dated 8-2-2002 as illegal and for a consequential direction to the first respondent for restoration of the licence of the appellant. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by observing as follows:
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without going into merits of the case and since the licence of the petitioner's shop is suspended pending enquiry, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents-authorities to complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs."
Aggrieved by the said decision the present appeal has been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order impugned in the writ petition is ex facie illegal and that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to suspend the licence without affording an opportunity to the appellant/petitioner.
3. We have perused the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal are only general in nature and no specific reference has been made with reference to the proviso to Section 31 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short "the Act"), which says 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 order impugned, show cause notice was issued to the appellant under Section 31 (1)(b) of the Act for cancellation of the licence under the said proviso and pending the said proceedings the licence issued to the appellant had been suspended, which, in our opinion, is against the proviso to the said section. Since an opportunity was not given, the licence cannot be suspended. A Division Bench of this Court comprising of Chief Justice and V.V.S. Rao, J., in the judgment reported in K. Srinivasa Reddy v. Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, (D.B.) in an identical matter held 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 is illegal and against the provisions of Section 31 (1) of the Act."
4. We, therefore, set aside only the order of suspension but retain the show-cause notice for cancellation of licence. The appellant has already submitted her objection for the proposed action of cancellation of licence. We, therefore, direct the first respondent viz., the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Srikakulam to decide the matter on merits and dispose of the same within ten days from to-day.
5. The enquiry shall be completed within the ten days from to-day. Till the final orders are passed by the first respondent on the show-cause notice for the proposed cancellation of licence, the appellant is permitted to run the shop.
6. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.