IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 11699 of 2008 Between: L.Satyanarayana S/o.Hanumantha Rao Resident of Eastern Street, Eluru, West Godavari District, Licensee of M/s.Ganesh Restaurant and Bar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the 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, Eluru, West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in Rc.No.38/2008/A2 31.5.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was granted licence bearing No.5/2006-07 in Form-2B, under the provisions of the A.P. Excise (Grant of licence of selling by Bar and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short “the Rules”), in the year 2006, for running bar and restaurant and the said licence was renewed for the year 2007-08. While so, on 24.01.2008 the third respondent along with his staff has drawn samples of loose liquor of the brand of Aristocrat Finest Indian Whisky and one of the samples was sent to the chemical examiner for analysis and on 28.01.2008, the chemical examiner sent his report opining that the liquor was diluted and on receipt of the said analysis report, the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Eluru, suspended the licence of the petitioner by the impugned order, dated 31.05.008. The reason for cancelling the licence was that dilution of liquor and sale of such diluted liquor not only leads to loss in revenue to the Government, but also affects the public health, which is to be nipped in the bud and that the petitioner has clearly violated Rule 23 of the Rules, which reads as under: “The Indian liquor and Foreign liquor offered for sale or stored in the licenced premises shall not be of substandard, deteriorated, spurious or adulterated and the licensee shall not temper with the Indian liquor and Foreign liquor in any manner so as to alter their quality, strength nature or quantity.” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no basis to come to such a conclusion that the liquor was diluted and that there is loss in revenue to the Government, as proper method was not followed while drawing the samples and even assuming that the liquor samples, which were said to have drawn, were found diluted, it cannot be said that there is loss to the Government and that consumption of the diluted liquor will affect the public health. I am of the opinion that there cannot be any basis for coming to the conclusion that consumption of the diluted liquor will affect the public health. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that consumption of concentrated liquor alone affects the health of the public, but not the diluted liquor. However, I am not inclined to express any opinion in this regard, as it is the expert who has to give his opinion. It is further submitted that suspension of the licence pending enquiry is ancillary power of the licensing authority and as per the full Bench Judgment of this Court, suspension pending enquiry cannot be made in a routine manner and if the circumstances warrant, the licencing authority shall give reasonable opportunity to the concerned party. It is also stated that in exceptional cases where the public health is affected, to prevent consumption of adulterated liquor, the extreme step of suspension shall be taken. I am of the opinion that suspension of the licence pending enquiry, in the instant case, four months after obtaining the chemical analysis report, is not at all warranted and there are no emerging circumstances to suspend the licence of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed directing the second respondent to issue show cause notice and take appropriate action after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs. _____________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dt:10.06.2008 Note:Furnish C.C. in two days. (B/o) GJ