THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.20937 OF 2006 Dated: 12th October, 2006. Between : M/s. Sri Gowri Parameswari Wines, Rep. by its Licensee Sri P. Ravi .. Petitioner And The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Chodavaram Post, Visakhapatnam District... Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.20937 OF 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent - Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Chodavaram, dated 21-9-2006 and to quash the same being arbitrary, illegal and violative principles of natural justice and particularly being in violation of the proviso to Section 31 (1) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The petitioner is a licensee in Form-A4 granted under the provisions of A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence Rules), 2005 (for short, ‘the Rules’) in respect of the shop at Purushothampuram village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Under the impugned proceedings dated 21-9-2006, the respondent in exercise of the powers vested under Section 31 (1) (b) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short, ‘the Act’) suspended the petitioner’s licence with immediate effect pending enquiry. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that on 18-9- 2006, the Station House Officer, Anakapalli along with the mediators surprised the licensed premises of the petitioner and found two persons present in the shop were diluting liquor and selling the same. When the liquor was tested with Hydrometer, the strength of the diluted liquor was found to be 32 UP. The two persons present in the shop did not produce the Nowkarnama and they also failed to produce the account book and inspection book. The stocks available in the shop did not tally with the TPs available. That apart, seals of 136 nips of different brands were found to be tampered and they did not have any excise labels. In the circumstances, the samples from all the 140 nips were drawn and the two persons available in the shop were arrested under a cover of mediators report. Thereafter, a crime was registered with the Station House Officer, Anakapalli for the offence under Section 36 (b) (c) of the Act. In view of the prima facie evidence that the petitioner having adulterated the liquor was conducting loose sales in violation of the Conditions of Licence stipulated in Form-A4 licence and thereby violated the Rules 37, 40, 48 , 49 and 54 of the Rules, the licence of the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect pending enquiry in exercise of powers under Section 31 (1) (b) of the Act. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that since the alleged inspection was conducted in his absence and the impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity to him as required under the proviso to Section 31 (1) of the Act, the same is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be quashed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner who contended that it is mandatory under the proviso to Section 31 (1) of the Act to give an opportunity to the licensee to make his representation before suspending the licence. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision in SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD. vs. GOVT. OF A.P. AND OTHERS[1]. In the above said decision, the order dated 5-1-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise blacklisting the petitioner therein, who was a contractor for supply of Indian made foreign liquor was under challenge. One of the grounds raised was that the said order which was passed without giving the petitioner a chance of putting forth his version was violative of the principles of natural justice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court while accepting the said contention further observed that even if it is taken as a case of implied suspension of licence as contended by the respondents, the impugned order cannot sustain since no show-cause notice against the order was issued to the petitioner as required under the proviso to Section 31 (1) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The observations made in the above case had no application at all to the case on hand since admittedly the order impugned in this writ petition is only an order of suspension pending enquiry. Section 31 (1) of the Act provides for suspension as a measure of substantive punishment. It does not deal with a situation where the licence is suspended pending enquiry as an interim measure. Hence, no prior notice is necessary in the case of suspension pending enquiry. The said aspect has been made clear by a Full bench of this Court in TAPPERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MADDUR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE[2] holding that the licence issued under the A.P. Excise Act can be kept under suspension pending enquiry and such order of suspension pending enquiry need not be preceded by any notice. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order cannot be held to be bad for want of notice. No other point is urged by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 12-10-2006 gbs [1] 1998 (2) ALT 348 [2] 1984 (2) APLJ 1 (FB)