THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 8731 of 2009 O r d e r: The petitioners have questioned the notice dated 09.04.2009, issued by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Sanga Reddy, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why their TFT licences should not be suspended for the rest of the lease period under Sections 31(1)(b) and 37 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents. This Court vide orders dated 15.04.2009, dismissed a batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 7122 of 2009 and batch, filed by A-4 licence holders questioning the similar show cause notices, holding that Courts normally would not interfere at the stage of show cause notice, for the recipient of the show cause notice is given opportunity to put forth his case against the proposed action, and in holding so, it followed the judgment of this Court in K.M. Safiullah v. A.P. State Wakf[1], wherein it was held as follows: The writ Court would not ordinarily interfere at the stage of show cause notice for it favours the quasi judicial authority vested with the power to exercise and discharge its statutory functions, with a free hand, independent from outside control. When a statutory authority issues a show cause notice, the recipient of the show cause notice has ample opportunity to approach the quasi-judicial authority and place his/her case before such authority that will decide in accordance with law. If an order passed by the quash-judicial authority goes against the person, it is always open to such person to avail the remedy of appeal or approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, if it is permissible under law. A writ petition against a show cause is, ordinarily, not maintainable.’ Hence, following the above judgment, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, since the petitioners are said to have already submitted their explanations to the show cause notice on 24.04.2009, the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Sanga Reddy, shall consider the explanations of the petitioners, and pass appropriate speaking orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: April, 2009. KSR [1] 2003 (2) ALT 253