IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6528 of 2009 Between: 1 Vempuluru Narasaiah S/o. Bujjaiah R/o. Narasapuram Village, Indukurpet Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Nimmala Eshwaraiah S/o. Pitchaiah R/o. Koruturu Village, Indukurpet Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Nellore. 3 The Excise Superintendent, Nellore. 4 The Excise Circle Inspector, Neelagiri Sangham, Moolapet, Nellore. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Reference R.C.No.629/91/A1 dated 01.02.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, void ab-initio, as it is violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to Judgment in W.P.No.4208 of 1998 dated 21.07.2008 and illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the notice dated 1.2.2009 issued by the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Nellore, the 3rd respondent herein calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.11,67,877/- within a period of 15 days, and if he is having any objection, to submit his explanation within the said period. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that even though in the earlier round of litigation, this Court in W.P.No.4208 of 1998 dated 21.7.2008 while setting aside impugned notice dated 3.2.1998, directed the 3rd respondent to determine the resultant loss/excise arrears by following due procedure prescribed in law i.e. by issuing show cause notice, giving reasonable opportunity and by passing final order, the 3rd respondent without following the said directions, has passed the impugned order straight away determining the amount liable to be paid by the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that even though the impugned order was issued directing the petitioner to submit the explanation or his objections in regard to determining the amount payable by him, the penultimate paragaph indicates that the 3rd respondent has already determined the amount liable to be paid by the petitioner even before considering his objections for such determination. In the circumstances, it is directed that the impugned notice dated 1.2.2009 shall be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from today and the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the said explanation/objections of the petitioner and pass appropriate speaking orders. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to recover any amounts from the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.30.3.2009 Note: Issue CC in 2 days. (B/o) msv