IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 15840 of 2009 Between: R.Sateesh Kumar and others. .... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad And others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notice dated 05.06.2009 issued by respondent No.4 in pursuance of the proceedings Rc.No.711/2008/B, dated 18.10.2008 and 27.05.2009 of respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioners submitted applications to the 3rd respondent for grant of licence to run a bar under the provisions of the A.P. Excise (Grant of licence by selling by bar and conditions of licence) Rules, the same were considered and granted licence in Form No.2B. After expiry of the licence period, the licences have been renewed for the excise year 2007-08 and 2008- 09. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent has issued proceedings in Rc.No.711/2008/B, dated 18.10.2008 and 27.05.2009 to the 4th respondent directing him to issue demand notice to the petitioners, according to which the licensee is liable for payment of 10% additional licence fees for having non-contiguous consumption floors. On the basis of the said proceedings, the 4th respondent has directed the petitioners to pay 10% additional licence fee. Aggrieved by the said notices, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. On perusal of the said order, which is in the form of notice dated 05.06.2009, whereby the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kurnool levied and demanded the petitioners to remit 10% additional licence fee for the consumption halls, separated by utility/floors as shown in the said order. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Mehar Kumar and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, this Court is of the view that the said notice dated 05.06.2009 cannot be said to be a mere notice, but an order, whereby the petitioners are directed to pay the said amount. When, once the authority has taken a particular view and demands the payment of certain amounts, the principles of natural justice require that the petitioner shall be put on notice before any action taken. 5. Here is a case, where the petitioners are directed to remit 10% additional licence fee and the same is not preceded by any notice. Hence, it can only be said that the order, which is in the form of a notice, is contrary to all canons of law. 6. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the said order, but, however, the petitioners are hereby directed to treat the said order/notice dated 05.06.2009 as a show-cause notice and offer their explanation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and after receiving the explanation from the petitioners, the competent authority shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J August 5, 2009 KSH