IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13283 of 2009 Between: 1 Srinivas Goud S/o Naara Goud TFT Licence Holder Domadugu(V) Jinnaram(M) Medak District 2 K.Anja Goud S/o Maisa Goud TFT Licence Holder Domadugu(V) Jinnaram(M) Medak District 3 S.Anja Goud S/o.Narsa Goud TFT Licence Holder Domadugu(V) Jinnaram(M) Medak District 4 S.Vishwanath Goud S/o.Chandra Goud TFT Licence Holder Domadugu(V) Jinnaram(M) Medak District 5 K.Srisailam Goud S/o.Narayan Goud TFT Licence Holder Domadugu(V) Jinnaram(M) Medak District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh at Excise Bhavan, J.N. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Medak Division at Medak District 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Sanga Reddy,Medak District 4 The Prohibiion & Excise Inspector Narsapur Excise Station Medak District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 03.06.2009 whereby the TFT licenses of the petitioners were suspended pending enquiry. Heard Sri B.Sai Ram Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. On the basis of inspection of the petitioners’ TFT shops by the State Task Force party, a show cause notice for suspension of their licenses for the rest of the lease period under Sections 31(1)(b) and 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioners. Questioning the said show cause notice, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.8731 of 2009. This Court dismissed the same vide its order, dated 30.04.2009 by holding that the writ petition was not maintainable against the show cause notice. Since the petitioners were stated to have submitted their explanation to the show cause notice, respondent No.3 was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate speaking order in accordance with law. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said show cause notice before respondent No.2. They also filed Writ Appeal No.662 of 2009. The Division Bench while declining to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, disposed of the said appeal on 02.06.2009 by directing respondent No.3 to pass appropriate order on representation, dated 24.04.2009 submitted by the petitioners on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. A day immediately thereafter i.e. on 03.06.2009, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order suspending the petitioners’ licenses pending further enquiry. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued and in my view justifiably that when respondent No.3 had issued show cause notice for passing appropriate order on the proposed substantive penalty of suspension and both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench directed him to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass a final order, there is no justification for respondent No.3 to suspend the petitioners’ licenses pending further enquiry. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no specific reasons have been given by respondent No.3 to resort to the action of suspension pending enquiry. He referred to the explanation of the petitioners to the show cause notice. As noted above, the show cause notice was issued proposing to pass a final order of suspension. Having received the explanation from the petitioners, respondent No.3 ought to have considered the same and passed final order instead of passing an interim order of suspension purporting to keep the enquiry pending. Such an action is contrary to the spirit of the orders passed by both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. Moreover, no events are stated to have transpired subsequent to the passing of the order by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench impelling respondent No.3 to pass an order of interim suspension, when the whole matter was seized of by him for passing a final order. In my considered view, the impugned order, on the facts of this case, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, liberty is given to respondent No.3 to pass a final order after objectively considering the objections of the petitioners and the material, such as, chemical examiner’s reports etc. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th JULY, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in five (5) days. kvni