IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION Nos.26588, 26614 & 26981 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION Nos.26588 OF 2007: Between: Kagita Venkata Sivudu. … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri O.Manohar Reddy Sri C.S.N.Raju Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Govt. Pleader Prohibition and Excise. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the main Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. These Writ Petition are filed questioning individual show-cause notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Eluru, respondent No.2 herein, whereby he called upon the petitioners to submit their explanations against the proposed cancellation of Form-2-B Bar licenses. The petitioners are Form-2-B licensees. The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Bheemavaram, inspected the premises of the petitioners and drew samples of alleged loose whisky. The samples were sent for analysis and according to the allegation contained in the show-cause notices, the analysis reports revealed that the seized samples have higher UP strength than the actual UP strength of 25 . On the said premise, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners. These Writ Petitions are filed questioning the said show-cause notices. On behalf of the petitioners, Sri O.Manohar Reddy and Sri C.S.N.Raju, advanced their arguments. On behalf of the respondents, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submitted her arguments. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners advanced two contentions, viz., (1) that the tenor of the show-cause notices shows that respondent No.2 has pre-judged the issue by arriving at the definite conclusions regarding dilution of whisky by the petitioners and that, therefore, he reduced the entire process of inviting explanation and passing final orders to a mere formality; and (2) the respondents have not followed the procedure of handing over a second sample to the petitioners for being sent to an independent Analyst and that this resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to dispute the correctness or otherwise of the analysis made by the Government Analyst. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submitted that though the contents of the show-cause notices show that respondent No.2 arrived at final conclusions, the very fact that the petitioners were called upon to file their explanations shows that they are in the nature of show- cause notices and that respondent No.2 would consider and dispose of the explanations of the petitioners with open mind. With respect to the second contention, the learned Assistant Government Pleader argued that the A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005 (for short “the Bar Rules”) do not envisage serving a second sample for being sent to independent Analyst and, therefore, there is no requirement for the respondents to follow the said procedure. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A reading of the show-cause notices shows that respondent No.2 has arrived at specific conclusions such as “the licensee of the Bar has clearly violated the rule 23 of A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005” and “the Chemical Analysis Report clearly established that the licensee has committed an offence U/s.31 (1)(b) the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 which is contrary to the provision of Rule 23 of A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005 and license condition 10 of 2B Bar license conditions”. The peremptory language in which the show- cause notices are couched justifies the criticism leveled by the learned counsel for the petitioners against the approach of Respondent No.2, who, in my view, failed to draw a distinction between the stage of giving show- cause notices and that of passing final orders. Before the petitioners are called upon to submit their version, he had only one side of the story. It is, therefore, not permissible for him, at that stage, to come to definite and specific conclusions on the violation of the Rules by the petitioners. It is only after the other side of the story is considered by him, as could be reflected from the explanations and the material submitted by the petitioners that he is entitled to render his final opinion. But, respondent No.2, even at the notice stage, gave his findings, which created reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that filing of explanations would be only an empty formality. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned show-cause notices, both in their form and content, do not conform to the prescribed standard of show-cause notices which require that the authority issuing notices is entitled only to record his prima facie opinion keeping an open mind till he passes final orders after he considers the explanations of the noticees. Therefore, the impugned show-cause notices are liable to be, and accordingly, set aside. With respect to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, admittedly, the Bar Rules do not provide for drawing and preserving a second sample. The petitioners have not questioned the vires of the Rules. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court to consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage. They are given liberty to raise this contention before respondent No.2 in their explanations to be submitted to the fresh show- cause notices to be issued by him. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. The impugned show-cause notices are quashed. Respondent No.2 is given liberty to issue fresh show- cause notices keeping in view the observations made supra. ---------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 03-4-2008. MNR