THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 20-06-2011 WRIT APPEAL No. 410 OF 2011 Between: K. Mallaiah and two others ... APPELLANTS AND The Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Sangareddy Division at Sangareddy, Medak District and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 410 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) A writ was sought by the writ petitioners – appellants seeking a restraint to be placed upon the respondents from interfering with their toddy business conducted in counter Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (TFT Licenses) of Nizampet Village, Naraynakhed Mandal, Medak District. Responding to the relief sought, the State pressed into service an order of suspension of licenses dated 25-11-2010 passed by dint of Rule 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 founded on the report of the chemical analyst suggesting adulteration of toddy with diazepam. Conversely, the writ petition was filed on the ground that the respondents have no authority to interfere with the business of the writ petitioners – appellants in absence of suspension of the licences, on the allegation of non-communication of the said order but fact remains that order of suspension had been passed before institution of the writ petition. The main grouse registered before us is that the appellants were not heard before the writ Court. In view of the challenge, we have heard the counsel for the appellants at length on merits who has contended that suspension without right of representation could not have been passed. The contention is being urged notwithstanding the law laid down by this Court to the contrary in Toddy Co-operative Society, Yellareddypet v. Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Karimnagar District and others[1], wherein it is held that representation is entitlement of an aggrieved person against final punishment and not against a suspension passed as an interim measure pending enquiry, as is true of the case on hand. In that view of the matter, we find no fault with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 2. A few questions of fact were also raised before us but we choose to refrain from expression of opinion, to be addressed by the appellate forum provided the appellants approach it. Towards the conclusion of the arguments, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise has produced a copy of order bearing Cr.No.B1/559/2010, dated 26-05-2011 which unfolds cancellation of the license of the writ petitioners – appellants which was not the subject matter of the writ petition, therefore no comment is called for. However, nothing prevents the appellants to invoke the appropriate remedy. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 20-06-2011 K. Shyleshi [1] 2003 (6) ALD 32 = 2003 (5) ALT 475