IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11798 of 2009 Between: Chitakana Vijaya Kumar S/o.Rama Rao Licensee of M./s.Avinash Wines,Tadepalligudem West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner for PROHIBITON and Excise Eluru, West Godavari District 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Eluru West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning Order dated 15-06- 2009 passed by respondent No.3, whereby A4 license of the petitioner has been suspended on a serious allegation that 288 bottles of Haywards Super Strong Beer and 240 bottles of Knock Out Strong Beer meant for sale in Pondicherry Union Territory was being illegally transported by a person by name Chintikina Ramakrishna, Nowkarnamadar of the petitioner. Though Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the impugned order of suspension is illegal, I have not felt impressed by the same. The learned Counsel argued that even without giving a notice to the petitioner, certain findings have been rendered in the impugned order, which are conclusive in nature. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 was discreet in using the word “prima facie” before drawing his conclusion. Therefore, there is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has rendered conclusive findings even before an enquiry is held. Admittedly, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of fling an appeal under Section 63 of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 before the appellate authority. As the petitioner failed to show any extraordinary reason to permit him to file this Writ Petition bypassing the effective alternative remedy of appeal, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to him to file an appeal before the appellate authority. If such an appeal is filed, respondent No.2-appellate authority shall dispose of the same with reasonable expedition. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.15196 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th June, 2009 LUR