IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.29112 OF 2010 DATED:23.11.2010 Between: Chintapalli Srinivas … Petitioner And District Collector East Godavari, at Kakinada and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.29112 OF 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the show cause notice dated 27.9.2010 issued by the first respondent in Rc.No.A2/117/2010. The petitioner has participated in the auction for sale of leasehold rights of a liquor shop, the subject of which is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, “the Rules”) framed under Section 72 read with Sections 17, 28 and 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short, “the Act”). For the shop at Komarajulanka Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District, the petitioner has offered his bid at Rs.70,88,888/- and it was the highest bid. The bid was accepted under Rule 18 of the Rules by the auctioning authority. After acceptance of the bid, the petitioner failed to remit the 1/6th of the amount as per the Rules. As such, the second highest tendered amount was accepted which was at Rs.41,22,777/-. However, for the differential amount, alleging that there was loss to the State exchequer, earlier, orders were issued by the respondent authorities demanding the same, against which the petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.19252 of 2010. This Court by order dated 6.8.2010 allowed the said writ petition at the stage of admission, by setting aside the proceedings dt.11.6.2010 and permitting the authorities to initiate fresh action following the due procedure, before determining the liability. By the impugned show cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to explain the reasons, within a period of ten days, as to why such resultant loss shall not be recovered from him. In this writ petition, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no loss at all, inasmuch as the accepted bid is also more than the upset price fixed by the respondents. In such an event, there is no reason to initiate the proceedings to recover any loss from the petitioner. The impugned notice is only a show cause notice. There is no reason to entertain this writ petition at this stage. If the petitioner is having any objections to explain to the respondents stating that there is no loss on account of his not depositing 1/6th of the amount, after acceptance of the bid under Rule 18 of the Rules, the petitioner can as well file his explanation to the impugned show cause notice. Even before such explanation is filed and is considered by the authorities, the writ petition cannot be entertained, at this stage. Inasmuch as the ten days period, which was given to the petitioner to file his explanation to the impugned show cause notice, is already expired, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit his explanation to the impugned show cause notice within two weeks from today, raising objections to the impugned demand. I am sure that if such an explanation is filed, the respondent – District Collector will consider the same before passing final orders. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23.11.2010 bnr