THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29783 of 2011 Dated 09th November, 2011 Between: M/s.Bhavani Restaurant and Bar …Petitioner And Government of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Ex-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri J.Prabhakar The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside memo bearing No.14852/Ex.II(2)/2011, dated 31.10.2011, of respondent No.1, vacating order, dated 15.04.2011, whereby interim stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. I have heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. A4 licence of the petitioner was suspended by respondent No.3 vide his order, dated 27.03.2011, on several allegations. Simultaneously, respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice for cancellation of the licence on the same day on which the said order of suspension was passed. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 by way of a purported appeal, which was entertained by the latter and an order of stay was granted on 15.04.2011. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 has vacated the said interim stay. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order vacating the stay causes irreparable injury to the petitioner’s interests. He submitted that his client is innocent and on account of the business rivalry with M/s.New Bagga Wines, his client is implicated. Since a final order on the show-cause notice, dated 27.03.2011, is yet to be passed by respondent No.3, it is not appropriate for this Court to deal with the submissions of the learned counsel on merits. It will suffice to note that convincing reasons are assigned by respondent No.3 while suspending the petitioner’s licence and similarly respondent No.1 has also given cogent reasons for vacating the interim stay. As serious allegations of committing irregularities in the sale of liquor are made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 1, at this stage. However, it would be in the interests of justice that respondent No.3 completes the enquiry and passes a final order on the show- cause notice. If the petitioner has not submitted its explanation to the show-cause notice, it is permitted to submit its explanation within a period of one week from today. Respondent No.3 shall pass a final order, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of three weeks of submission of explanation by the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36894 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th November, 2011 Note: Issue CC in five days. (b/o) VGB