THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.25984 of 2009 DATE:30.11.2009 Between: M/s. T.J.Cellulose (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Mattampalli Village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District ... Petitioner and The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad. ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.25984 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner company seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the record in Cr.No.10865/2008/CPE/B1(1), dated 29.10.2009 and quash the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner company is the holder of RS III licence under the A.P.Rectified Spirit Rules, 1971 (for short "the Rules"). Basing on the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor, in Rc.No.400/2009/A dated 15.09.2009 that during the course of inspection, the excise officials found that on 09.09.2009 the petitioner company was transporting 25 white plastic cans of spirit in a Tata Sumo to Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu, in contravention of Rules 14, 15 and 16 of the Rules and the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Chittoor Urban registered a case in Cr.No.310/2009-10 dated 09.09.2009, the respondent herein issued a notice in Cr.No.10865/2008/CPE/B1(2) dated 29.10.2009 calling upon the petitioner company to submit explanation as to why its licence should not be cancelled within ten days, and on the same day, he also suspended its licence in Cr.No.10865/2008/CPE/B1(1). The same is questioned in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner company has contended that even for issuance of an order of suspension pending enquiry, a prior notice should be issued. For an interim measure of suspension, in my considered view, the authorities concerned need not issue notice. In fact, this view of mine is fortified by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1984 (2) APLJ Page 1. Therefore, the contention put forth by the learned counsel is rejected. 4. Now that the petitioner company has offered its explanation to the show cause notice issued by the respondent as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner company, this Court is of the view that the respondent can be directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 30th November, 2009 cbs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.25984 of 2009 (Disposed of) 30th November, 2009 cbs