IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT APPEAL NO : 992 of 2004 & W.P. No.21913/2003 WRIT APPEAL No. 992 OF 2004. (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/02/2004 in WVMP No.4266/2003 in WPMP 27354/03 in WP No. 21913 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1.The Commissioner of Proh., & Excise, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. The Proh., & Excise Superintendent, Cuddapah District. 3. The Proh., & Excise Inspector, Mydukur, Cuddapah District. ..... APPELLANTS AND C.Deepthi Kumar, s/o Laxminarayana, Mydukur, Cuddapah District, Licensee of M/s.Raghurama Wines .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent : MR.A.JAGANNATHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 21913 of 2003 Between: C.Deepthi Kumar s/o Laxminarayana Mydukur Cuddapah Dist. Licencee of M/s Raghuram Wines ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Proh & Excise Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad 2 The Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Cuddapah Dist. 3 Proh, & Excise Inspector, Mydukur Cuddapah Dist. .....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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in proceedings RC. No. A3/721/2003 dated 16-9-2003 suspending the licence of the petitioner as illegal and without jurisdiction, and, consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on the business and pass such other or further orders as the Honourable Court feels deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.JAGANNATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court Made the Following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per The Honourable Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Appeal is against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, while issuing Rule Nisi in the writ petition. In the writ petition, writ petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the proceedings dated 16-09-2003, issued by the second appellant by way of interim relief. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge suspended the operation thereof. Proceedings, dated 16-09-2003, impugned in the writ petition is an order of the second appellant passed in exercise of his powers under Section 31(1)(b) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 (for short “the Act”), suspending the shop licence being in violation of licence conditions with immediate effect, pending enquiry in the matter. The said order was suspended by an interim order which was made absolute by further order, dated 09-02-2004. Suspending such an order, as a matter of fact, has resulted in, (a) putting the order of suspension of shop licence of the writ petitioner in abeyance till writ petition is heard and decided, and, (b) putting the enquiry also under suspension during the pendency of the writ petition. As a matter of fact, clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 31 of the Act, empowers the authority granting licence or permit under the provisions of the Act, to cancel or suspend such licence or permit, in the event of any breach by the holder thereof, or by his servants, or by any person acting on his behalf, with express or implied permission, of any terms and conditions thereof. This power is subject to the provision that no licence or permit shall be cancelled or suspended, unless the holder of the licence is given an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action. The order impugned in the writ petition is passed by the concerned authority on the basis of the fact situation that there is involvement of the writ petitioner in a case of selling liquor for more than RMRP rates, and that show cause notice was issued to him, to which he replied, and the reply was not found satisfactory, and for that reason, the authority concerned proceeded to suspend the shop license pending enquiry in the matter. The enquiry which is pending in the case of the writ petitioner/respondent is as to why his permission be not cancelled. There is no objection that the authority was competent to have suspended the shop licence, which, in this case has been done only after notice to the writ petitioner and after considering his reply. For that reason, there was no need for the learned Single Judge to have exercised the writ jurisdiction to entertain such a writ petition and to have suspended the operation of the order. At the most, learned Single Judge, in case, is satisfied that there cannot be limitless suspension, he would have directed the enquiry to be completed within certain time frame. Learned Counsel for the respondent has no objection for the order to be passed disposing of the writ petition. Consequently, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and also proceed to dismiss the respondent’s writ petition, but with a direction to the second appellant to conclude the enquiry and pass final order in the said enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, C.J. 5th July, 2004 ____________ G.ROHINI, J. *LUR/VR To 1. The Commissioner of Proh., & Excise, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. The Proh., & Excise Superintendent, Cuddapah District. 3. The Proh., & Excise Inspector, Mydukur, Cuddapah District. 4. Two CCs to the Govt.Pleader for Excise, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T) 5. Two CD copies.