THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31721 of 2011 Dated 12th December, 2011 Between: N.Sravan Kumar Goud …Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, Mahabubnagar Circle at Mahabubnagar Town and District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Venugopala Rao Counsel for respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 14.11.2011, of respondent No.1, whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against order, dated 24.10.2011, of respondent No.2, suspending the petitioner’s A4 licence. The petitioner is a licensee for sale of IMFL and IL. The licence period is for two years valid upto 30.06.2012. The Special Task Force Party inspected the petitioner’s shop on 22.10.2010 at 6.30 pm and allegedly found spurious liquor in relation to five bottles of Bagpiper whisky (180 ml each) and six bottles of Officers Choice whisky (180 ml each) with fake adhesive labels. It is also alleged that the Inspecting Team noticed each sheet containing 162 square shape stickers and the person in-charge of the business failed to produce any transport permits, account registers etc. The eleven liquor bottles were seized under cover of panchanama and samples of each bottle were drawn and sent for chemical analysis. The entire stock of liquor was also seized. Respondent No.2, thereafter, issued proceedings in Rc.No.B/32/2011, dated 24.10.2011, suspending the petitioner’s A4 licence. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1, who by his order in Cr.No.A/706/2011, dated 14.11.2011, dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents have foisted a false case against his client. He further submitted that same adhesive labels, which were allegedly found fake, were mentioned in several crime reports, bearing PCOR No.475/2011-12, PCOR No.476/2011-12 and PCOR No.477/2011-12 and that therefore, this fact would prima facie reveal that the Department has framed the petitioner and other similarly situated persons by filing false cases. The learned counsel also submitted that respondent No.1 has failed to apply his mind independently and that he has merely repeated what respondent No.2 has stated in the order of suspension. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Goka Bujjamma v. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Srikakulam and others[1] in support of his submission that the order of suspension passed without prior notice is not valid in law and therefore the same cannot be sustained. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise seriously opposed the above submissions and stated that the petitioner is found using adhesive labels and since these labels were fake, the same batch numbers were found used by some other dealers also against whom the above-mentioned criminal cases have been registered. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that respondent No.1 has passed a detailed order giving reasons for confirming the order of respondent No.2. She placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Tappers Cooperative Society, Maddur v. Superintendent of Excise, Mahabubnagar[2] and submitted that the Division Bench judgment of this Court, on which, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, and the other Division Bench judgment in K.Srinivasa Reddy v. Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise[3], which was referred to and relied upon by the later Division Bench, have not considered the Full Bench Judgment in Tappers Cooperative Society (2 supra), wherein it was held that the licensing authority has incidental or ancillary power to suspend the licence pending enquiry without prior notice. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Since the enquiry into the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 is stated to be pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to render conclusive findings on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits. It will suffice to note that on the serious allegation of use of fake adhesive labels, the petitioner’s licence has been suspended. Even though the order of suspension has not in express terms stated that the same was passed pending enquiry, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the same is intended to be pending enquiry and that respondent No.2 is awaiting sample reports for passing a final order in the pending enquiry. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 has not given reasons, on a perusal of the order passed by him, I am unable to accept this contention. Detailed reasons have been recorded by respondent No.1 in his order, even though he may have placed reliance on the contents of the order of respondent No.2. By mere reliance on the order of respondent No.2, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 has not applied his mind independently. Since the scope of appeal before respondent No.1 was limited as to the legality of suspension of petitioner’s licence pending enquiry, respondent No.1 is not expected to dispose of the appeal as if the same arises out of a final order. At any rate, respondent No.1 was merely confirming the orders of respondent No.2 and therefore, detailed and elaborate reasons need not be assigned. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that failure to issue prior notice vitiates the impugned order, it is no doubt true that the two Division Bench judgments as referred to above, have set aside the orders of suspension on the ground that they were not preceded by a notice. However, the Full Bench in Tappers Cooperative Society ( 2 supra), while interpreting the provisions of Section 31 of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 has drawn distinction between suspension pending enquiry and suspension as a measure of penalty and held that in the former case, even though specific power is not conferred on the licensing authority, the same is concomitant to the main power and that such a power can be exercised as an incidental or ancillary power. The Full Bench further held that while exercising such a power pending enquiry, the licensing authority is entitled to exercise its discretion as to whether the situation warrants issuance of a notice or not and that in a given case if issuance of such notice is not warranted, the licensing authority is empowered to suspend licence without issuing a notice. As serious allegations of use of fake adhesive labels were made against the petitioner, respondent No.2 is justified in suspending the licence without prior notice. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with the direction to respondent No.2 to complete the enquiry and pass a final order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39363 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th December, 2011 VGB [1] 2003(2) ALT 549 (DB) [2] 1984 (2) APLJ 1 [3] 2002 (1) ALT 108 (DB)