THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. Nos. 7668, 7676, 7677, 7683 and 7688 of 2009 Common order: In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the notices issued by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why their A4 licences should not be suspended under Section 31(1)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’) for violating the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). 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, 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 petitions are also liable to be dismissed holding that they are not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners, however, are at liberty to submit their explanations to the show cause notices, if not already submitted, and thereupon, the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, shall consider the explanations, and pass appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law, expeditiously. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 17th April, 2009. KSR [1] 2003 (2) ALT 253