IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.1215 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sri Lakshmi Wines, Anantapur, Represented by its Proprietor and another. ...Appellants And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Sri B. Sairam Goud Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri K. Suresh Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1) Being aggrieved by an order dated 25th September, 2009 passed in WVMP.No.2534 of 2009 in WPMP.No.19760 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.15040 of 2009, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioners. 2) By virtue of the impugned order, the ex parte ad interim relief granted in WPMP.No.19760 of 2009, dated 27th July, 2009 has been vacated. 3) The relevant facts for deciding this appeal in a nutshell are as under: The appellants – original petitioners, apprehending that respondent No.5 would submit an application for shifting its bar from Door No.8-99, Court Road, Near Over Bridge, Anantapur to Door No.6/162, Satyadev Nagar, Bellary Road, Anantapur, had filed Writ Petition No.13153 of 2009. The said petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 that they should consider the objections of the appellants, who were petitioners in the said petition. The said objections were to be considered objectively and then appropriate decision was to be taken on the application praying for shifting of business of the present respondent No.5. 4) Ultimately, after considering the objections, which had been filed by the appellants, the afore-stated respondents granted permission to respondent No.5 to shift the place of its business. Being aggrieved by the said action, which had been taken in pursuance of the order dated 18th July, 2009, Writ Petition No.15040 of 2009 had been filed by the appellants. 5) By way of an ex parte ad interim relief, this Court had prevented the afore-stated respondents from permitting respondent No.5 from shifting its place of business by passing an order in WPMP.No.19760 of 2009, but subsequently, after considering the relevant facts and counter affidavits filed by the concerned parties, when WVMP.No.2534 of 2009 was filed, the afore-stated interim order had been vacated on 25th September, 2009, and being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. 6) The learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is unjust and illegal because the official respondents had not given personal hearing to the appellants. According to him, by not giving personal hearing, the official respondents had violated the principles of natural justice, and permission granted to respondent No.5 for shifting its place of business was in violation of the principles of natural justice and shifting of place of business for running bar and restaurant is illegal and improper and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have vacated the ad interim relief which had been granted earlier. 7) It has been further submitted that no notice had been given by respondent No.2 to the appellants before passing order dated 18th July, 2009, whereby respondent No.5 was permitted to shift its place of business and, therefore, the order dated 18th July, 2009 is unjust and illegal and hence, by an interim order, respondent No.5 must be prevented from shifting its place of business. 8) In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has relied on the judgments of this Court in the cases of BGR Energy Systems Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner[1] and State of Andhra Pradesh v. A. Murali Madhava Rao[2] and of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Gogoi v. State of Assam[3], Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh[4] and Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax[5]. 9) On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing for the official respondents that before passing the order dated 18th July, 2009, respondent No.2 had considered the objections raised by the appellants and the reasons for permitting shifting of the place of business have also been incorporated in the order dated 18th July, 2009. It has been, therefore, submitted that the said order is just and valid. 10) It has been further submitted that simply by not giving personal hearing to the appellants, the order dated 18th July, 2009 cannot be said to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. 11) Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the pleadings and the judgments referred to by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, we do not find any substance in this appeal and, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order. Had the impugned order not been passed and the ex parte ad interim relief granted earlier on 20th July, 2009 had been continued by the learned Single Judge, he would have practically allowed the petition at the stage of admission. When the learned Single Judge was informed about the version of the official respondents by filing counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge had rightly vacated the ad interim order dated 20th July, 2009. 12) We do not find any substance in the argument made by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the appellants ought to have been heard by respondent No.2 before passing the order dated 18th July, 2009. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 had to consider the objections which might have been filed by the appellants in pursuance of the order passed in Writ Petition No.13153 of 2009. In the order passed by this Court in the said petition, the learned Single Judge had never given any direction with regard to giving personal hearing. A direction was given to consider the objections and the objections had been duly considered by respondent No.2 before passing the order dated 18th July, 2009. The relevant extract of the order passed in Writ Petition No.13153 of 2009 had been reproduced in the impugned order and, therefore, we need not reproduce the same here, but the said order does not give any direction with regard to giving personal hearing. It is not necessary to give personal hearing in all cases. Looking to the facts of the case, as no direction for personal hearing was given, respondent No.2 cannot be constrained to read such a direction in the order passed in Writ Petition No.13153 of 2009. In our opinion, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that personal hearing should have been given. In this connection, a reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant[6] and Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja[7]. In the said judgments, it has been held that a strait-jacket formula cannot be made applicable in all cases and the doctrine of natural justice depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In another judgment reported in the case of M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India[8], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that opportunity to make representation need not necessarily be by personal hearing and it can be by written representation. 13) So far as merits are concerned, respondent No.2 has referred to the objections raised by the appellants in his order dated 18th July, 2009, which we have carefully considered and, in our opinion, the said objections were prima facie found to be not well founded by respondent No.2 and, therefore, after considering the objections, respondent No.2 brushed aside the same and passed the order dated 18th July, 2009, whereby respondent No.5 was permitted to shift its place of business i.e. bar and restaurant. 14) So far as the judgments referred to by the learned Advocate for the appellants are concerned, in our opinion, no judgment deals with the subject and no judgment lays down law to the effect that even if there is no direction with regard to giving personal hearing, the concerned authority must give personal hearing. In the instant case, this Court had given a direction to the official respondents to consider the objections, and as respondent No.2 had duly considered the objections, we do not see any violation of the principles of natural justice guaranteed to the appellants. As observed by the Supreme Court in M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), opportunity of representation need not necessarily be by personal hearing and it can be by written representation, and the appellants had been given an opportunity to raise objections, which they had submitted, and the same were considered by respondent No.2 while passing the order dated 18th July, 2009. 15) For the afore-stated reasons, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be improper or unjust. The said order is just and proper. 16) Looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Jude should hear the matter finally at an early date, and if an application praying for early hearing of the petition is made by the appellants, we are sure that the learned Single Judge will duly consider the same and give due priority to final hearing of Writ Petition No.15040 of 2009. 17) The appeal stands disposed of as dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 30th October, 2009. SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU, J. ARS [1] 2009-LAP-0-107 = 2009 (TLS) 441290 [2] 2009-LAP-0-89 = 2009 (TLS) 441226 [3] 2009-TLPRE-0-817 = 2009 (TLS) 49252 [4] 2008-TLPRE-0-1641=2008 (TLS) 47305 [5] 2008 -TLPRE-0-604 = 2008 (TLS) 46980 [6] (2001) 1 SCC 182 = AIR 2001 SC 24 [7] (2008) 9 SCC 31 [8] AIR 1996 SC 671