IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5807 of 2008 Between: K.Bhochandra Reddy S/o.Subbarami Reddy R/o.A.Rangampet(V) Chandragiri(M) Chittoor Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Pakala, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 14-03-2008 passed by respondent No.2, wherein the petitioner’s A4 license for selling liquor in retail was suspended pending enquiry under Section 31(1)(b) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal. A perusal of the record shows that on the basis of a raid conducted by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Pakala on 12-03-2008, along with his staff and mediators, certain quantities of liquor were seized from Rajahamsa cool drink shop, which is situated in the vicinity where the petitioner’s shop viz., Rajahamsa Wines is located. Respondent No.2, having opined that the petitioner had been indulging in dilution of liquor and loose sales, passed the impugned order by suspending the petitioner’s license. Questioning the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent No.2 is in violation of proviso to Section 31(1)(b) of the Act, under which, it is obligatory for respondent No.2 to give an opportunity of making representation to the petitioner, before suspending his license. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Goka Bujjamma vs. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Srikakulam and others[1]. I have gone through the said judgment. In the said case, the Division Bench set aside the order of learned single Judge, who declined to interfere with the order of suspension made pending enquiry and directed the authorities to complete enquiry. In setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and the order of suspension of license, the Division Bench relied upon earlier judgment of this Court in K. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise[2], whereby, the Division Bench set aside the order of suspension, which was passed as a measure of punishment. In Para 7 of the said judgment, it was observed as under: “The impugned order reads as if it is a final order under Section 31(1) of the Act. In our opinion, such an order cannot be treated as final adjudication of the rights and contentions of the parties.” Thus, the earlier Division Bench judgment in K. Srinivasa Reddy’s case (2nd cited supra) dealt with a case of a final order of suspension passed without following the procedure envisaged in the proviso to Section 31(1)(b) of the Act and solely basing on the said judgment, the later Division Bench set aside the order of suspension passed pending enquiry. The later Division Bench has not noticed a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Tappers Co- operative Society, Maddur vs. Superintendent of Excise[3], wherein it was held that the power of suspension pending enquiry is incidental or ancillary to the power of passing a substantive order of suspension as a measure of punishment and no prior notice is required before exercising the power of interim suspension pending enquiry. In view of the said judgment, the judgment in Goka Bujjamma’s case (1st cited supra) does not lay down correct law. Since respondent No.3 has the power to suspend the license pending enquiry without notice, there is no reason for the petitioner to bypass the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 63 of the Act. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the competent authority. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7555 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 18-03-2008 LUR [1] 2003(2) ALT 549 (D.B.) [2] 2002(1) ALT 108 (D.B.) [3] 1984(2) APLJ 1