HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14069 of 2010 Date: 07.12.2011 Between: Toddy Tappers Co-operative (Geetha Karmika Parishramika Sahakara Sangham), Nirmal, reptd by its President-M.Srinivas Goud ..... Petitioner And: The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Department of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Naveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.A7/72/2010, dated 15.06.2010, of respondent No.4, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s licence on the ground of alleged adulteration. This Court has granted interim order of suspension of the impugned order on 21.06.2010 for a limited period, which was subsequently extended from time to time. The plea of the petitioner is two fold, namely; that the order of suspension is not limited for any specific period and therefore, the same shall be construed as a final order of suspension made as a measure of substantive penalty and that, alternatively, even if the order of suspension is construed as interim in nature, no prior notice has been issued to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is inter alia stated that on the basis of the inspection of the toddy depot of the petitioner and spot test conducted by the Inspector personally, it was found that the toddy contained Chloro Hydrate and on the basis of the said spot test, the impugned order was passed by respondent No.4, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 31(1) (b) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, suspending the petitioner’s toddy depot licence, as a temporary measure, but not as a substantive penalty. Respondent No.4 has justified the said order passed without notice by placing reliance on the full Bench judgment of this Court in Tappers Co-Op. Society, Maddur V. Supdt of Excise (FB)[1]. With respect to the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the impugned order has not limited the order of suspension to any specific period, as the counter-affidavit has clarified that the suspension order was passed only as a temporary measure, the same shall be construed as an interim order and not a final order imposing substantive penalty on the petitioner. With regard to the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Full Bench in Tappers Co-Op. Society, Maddur (1 supra) held that the power of suspension of licence is concomitant or adjunct to the power of cancelling or suspending of licence as a measure of penalty and that, whether the suspension of licence must be preceded by a notice or opportunity, must depend upon various factors such as degree of urgency involved, the duration of suspension, the nature of the breach and public danger to be avoided. In my opinion, if the circumstances warrant immediate suspension, in order to protect public health, an order of interim suspension of licence can be made without issuing a prior notice. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.Srinivasa Reddy V. Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise[2] has not noticed the Full Bench judgment in Tappers Co-Op. Society, Maddur (1 supra). Therefore, the Division Bench judgment to the extent of holding that an order of suspension without prior notice is bad runs contrary to the dicta laid down by the Full Bench. In the premises as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the directions to respondent No.4 to complete the enquiry and pass a final order, on the basis of the Chemical Examiner’s report and the report of the independent laboratory, which is stated to have been received by respondent No.4 pending this Writ Petition, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As interim order of suspension of the impugned order is subsisting during the pendency of the Writ Petition, it is appropriate that status quo as on today shall be maintained with respect to running of the toddy depot by the petitioner till passing of final order by respondent No.4. 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.17704 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th December 2011 DR [1] 1984(2) APLJ 1 [2] 2002(1) ALT 108(D.B.)