IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7689 of 2009 Between: N. Gajapathi, S/o. Nagarathnam Mudaliar, R/o. Perumallapalle Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise Chittoor district. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent passed in Rc. NO. A/272/08dated 13-4-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 7689 of 2009 Oral order: Questioning the orders dated 13.04.2009, passed by the 3rd respondent, namely the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, suspending his A-4 licence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner states that before the impugned order suspending his A-4 licence came to be passed, he was issued notice dated 10.04.2009 to show cause within three days as to why his A-4 licence should not be suspended. The petitioner states that he submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 13.04.2009, which was received in the office of the 3rd respondent at 2.30 p.m., and it is his grievance that the 3rd respondent without considering his explanation and even before expiry of the notice period, passed the impugned order dated 13.04.2009 suspending the A-4 licence of the petitioner stating that he has not submitted his explanation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents. Admittedly, pursuant to the show cause notice dated 10.04.2009, the petitioner before expiry of the notice period, submitted his explanation, which was received in the office of the 3rd respondent on 13.04.2009. However, the 3rd respondent without considering the explanation and even before expiry of the notice period, has passed the impugned order, indicating as if the petitioner has not submitted his explanation. Prima facie, the impugned order, passed by the 3rd respondent, suspending the licence of the petitioner, is before expiry of the notice period and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, even though the explanation was received in the office of the 3rd respondent on 13.04.2009 at 2.30 p.m. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained, passed by the 3rd respondent, cannot be sustained and is liable to set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and passing orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 17th April, 2009. Note: Issue CC today. (B/o) KSR