IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12408 of 2008 Between: M/s. Manasa Bar & Restaurant, A Partnership firm, rep. by its managing Partner, Gavara Sesha Rao S/o. Srimannarayana, R/o. D.No. 16-7-5, 6th Ward, Gavara Srimannarayana Gari Rice Mill Road, Bhimavaram-1, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Goveernment of Andra Pradesh, Rep. by its Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, At Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Sub-inspector, Bhimavaram, West Godavari 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 2nd respondent issued in Rc.No. 178/2006/A4, dt. 11.06.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of Principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.S.N.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against an order dated 11.6.2008 bearing Rc.No.178/2006/A4 passed by the 2nd respondent canceling 2B licence bearing L.No.10/2006-07/Bvrm dated 6.7.2006 issued to the petitioner for running a bar and restaurant at Bhimavaram town in the 6th Ward. This order was passed by the 2nd respondent after a due process of enquiry though the petitioner urges a grievance that a copy of the Chemical Examiner’s Report, on the basis of which the conclusion to cancel was recorded in the impugned order, has not been supplied to him. There is nothing on record to permit the inference that a copy of the said report was asked for by the petitioner, but declined. In any event, the petitioner has available an appellate remedy to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise under Section 63 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is also not averse to pursue the said remedy. In the circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy to the Commissioner of Excise, under Section 63 of the Act. It is made clear that nothing stated in this judgment shall be construed as an expression by this Court on the merits of the petitioner’s case and the appellate authority shall determine the appeal if filed, on the basis of the material on record in the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 17.6.2008 cvm