HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.11128 of 2010 Between: M.Laxma Goud ………Petitioner And The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District and another. ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.11128 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed assailing the show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.E3/11/2010, 17-04-2010, whereby, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation as to why the T.F.T. Licence, under which he has been authorized to run a toddy shop, should not be cancelled. 2. The petitioner claims to be a tree trapper. He has been granted T.F.T. Lincence No.E3/91/2007, dated 06-11-2007, which is now valid up to 30-09-2012, under which he is authorized to run a toddy shop in Counter No.2 at Timmanagar. The Prohibition and Excise officials inspected the shop on 01-02-2010 and found toddy adulterated with chloral hydrate. The officials collected the samples for investigation purpose and registered a Crime in COR.No.277/2009- 10, dated 01-02-2010. Sample sent to the Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad, revealed adulteration. Based on the same, the 1st respondent gave a show cause notice in Rc.No.E3/11/2010, dated 17- 04-2010, alleging contravention of the licence conditions under the provisions of Section 37(A) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, called for the petitioner’s explanation as to why the licence should not be cancelled. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned notice although is styled as show cause notice, but in effect, it is an order. He further contended that second sample bottle has not been sent for chemical examination and therefore, the 1st respondent without first sending the sample for chemical examination should not have issued impugned show cause notice. 5. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is competent under the provisions of Section 31 (1) (b) of the Excise Act to initiate action for cancellation or suspension of a licence. A perusal of the impugned show cause notice shows that the shop was inspected, samples were drawn and one such sample sent to the chemical examiner was found to be adulterated and on all these grounds, the petitioner has been called upon to submit his explanation. It is not possible to read the show cause notice and treat the same as an order as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner should have submitted his explanation and participated in the enquiry in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice. It is well settled that no writ lies against a mere show cause notice except where such notice has been issued without jurisdiction. 6. The writ is, for the aforesaid reasons, dismissed as not maintainable. ______________ 12th May 2010 kvr