IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12696 of 2008 Between: G.V.R. Restaurant and Bar, D.No.12/28, Neela Mahal Road, Gudiwada, rep. by its Proprietor Puppala Anajaneyulu S/o. Late Venkanna H.No.13-118/C, Patimeeda, Gudivada, Krishna District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad, A.P. 2 The Deputy Commissioner for Prohibition & Excise, Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P. 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, A.P. 4 The Station House Officer, Excise Department, Gudiwada, Krishna District, A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.169/2008/A2, dated 18.05.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SREE RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: By the impugned order dated 18.5.2008 bearing Rc.No.169/2008/A2 issued by the 3rd respondent, a number of bar and restaurants, including the petitioner’s were intimated that the office of the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, had in an Audit report remarked and recorded that there was a failure of levy of 10% additional licence fee for the bar and restaurant licences, for the excise year 2006-2007. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the Audit report recorded failure to collect additional licence fee of Rs.1,40,000/- (10%), on the ground that the site plan of the licenced premises of the petitioner which was approved for establishing a bar and restaurant business was having the enclosures in two different floors and therefore were not contiguous and thus attracted the 10% additional licence fee. The singular contention of the petitioner in this writ petition challenging the impugned order of the 3rd respondent, calling upon the Station House Officer, Gudivada to collect the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- from the petitioner is that this order was passed without notice and opportunity to the petitioner and that the petitioner strenuously disputes the conclusion in the impugned order that it pursued business in two floors which are not contiguous and therefore the petitioner is not liable to the 10% additional licence fee. In view of the factual dispute asserted by the petitioner, the respondents consistent with the principles of natural justice should have afforded a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to respond before recording a conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay the 10% additional licence fee. The impugned order directing the Station House Officer, Gudivada, to collect the 10% additional licence fee from the petitioner in an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is therefore unsustainable for violation of principles of natural justice. On the analysis above, the Writ Petition is disposed of declaring that the 3rd respondent’s proceedings impugned herein bearing Rc.No. 169/2008/A2 dated 18.5.2008 be treated as a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a response to the 2nd respondent, who is stated by the learned Government Pleader for Excise to be the competent authority, setting out the objections to the determination of the petitioner’s liability to pay the 10% of the additional licence fee, within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such response from the petitioner, if any, and within the time stipulated above, the 2nd respondent shall consider the issue including by due consideration of all the petitioner’s objections and pass a final order which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Till then, no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the amount specified in the impugned order. The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Excise. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 19.6.2008 cvm