THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.24843 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner herein was granted Form C-1 licence under A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by In-house and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, ‘the Rules’) for the period from 08-07-2010 to 30-06-2011. By order dated 19-05-2011 passed by the second respondent the petitioner’s license was suspended and challenging the same the petitioner filed W.P.No.15476 of 2011. By order dated 09-06-2011 in W.P.M.P.No.18554 of 2011 this Court granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to order of suspension making it clear that the same would not precluded the authorities from issuing a show cause notice and taking appropriate action after considering the petitioner’s explanation. Pursuant to the said order though show cause notice dated 19-05-2011 was issued and the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations, even before passing the final order, the period of license expired on 30-06-2011. Before expiry of the licence, the petitioner made an application dated 26-06-2011 for grant of Form C-1 licence for the year 2011-2012. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent by order dated 29-08-2011 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s request for grant of Form C-1 licence for the year 2011-2012 was rejected on two grounds namely (1) two cases registered against the petitioner for its alleged involvement in dilution of liquor are pending and (2) the petitioner made alterations to the licensed premises un-authorizedly in violation of Rule 15 (2) of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while submitting that the alleged involvement of the petitioner in dilution of liquor was false and without any basis and that the cases were registered against the petitioner without following due process of law and that the petitioner was contesting the said cases, vehemently contended that mere pendency of the said cases does not disentitle the petitioner for grant of license. It is also contended that the allegation that the petitioner had made alterations to the licensed premises un-authorizedly was factually incorrect and moreover the said allegation was never put to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to explain the alleged unauthorized alterations to the premises has not been disputed. Similarly, the fact that the Criminal Case initiated against the petitioner for the alleged dilution of liquor is still pending is also not in dispute. Rule 6 of the Rules provides that a person who is convicted for non-bailable offence or who is a habitual offender is not eligible for grant of license. Admittedly, it is not a case where the petitioner is convicted nor it is alleged that he is a habitual offender. Even according to the respondents the Criminal Case initiated against the petitioner on 19-02-2011 for alleged involvement in dilution of liquor is still pending. Since the pendency of criminal case is not a ground specified in Rule 6, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent was not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s request for grant of licence on account of pendency of criminal case. So far the allegation with regard to the alteration of licensed premises in violation of Rule 15 (2) of the Rules is concerned, admittedly no notice was issued and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to make its representation explaining the said allegation. Even otherwise unauthorized alterations to the licensed premises does not appear to be a ground for rejection of the license under Rules. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order was passed without application of mind to the relevant factors and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the allegations. Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained and the matter requires re-consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s request for grant of form C-1 license and pass appropriate orders afresh, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J September 21, 2011 PN THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.24843 of 2011 September 21, 2011 PN