HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28732 of 2010 Date: 19th November 2010 Between : S. Bal Reddy. …….Petitioner And The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, A.P. & another. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28732 of 2010 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for respondents. Petitioner is a licensee under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’). The bid amount is payable in six instalments and the Excise Year commenced from 01.07.2010. As per the terms and conditions, the petitioner has given two bank guarantees at the time of grant of license. On the ground that the petitioner has not paid the 2nd instalment amount, payable on or before 20.10.2010, his bank guarantee was invoked and realised towards the 2nd instalment amount of Rs.22,50,000/-. As much as one bank guarantee has already been invoked, the 2nd respondent–Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Secunderabad has issued notice, dated 08.11.2010, in Cr.No.B4/931/2010/ESS, to the petitioner, directing him to furnish another bank guarantee for the aforesaid amount within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of said notice, failing which, action would be initiated against him under Section 31(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) and under Rule 20 of the Rules. It is the grievance of the petitioner that certain formalities, which are required to be completed before the bank, would take some time, but however, the respondents, without giving any further time, are attempting to take steps against him under Section 31(1) (a) of the Act and under Rule 20 of the Rules. As per the terms and conditions of grant of license, the petitioner has to give two bank guarantees. Though it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to pay the 2nd instalment by 20.10.2010, he committed default, and hence, one bank guarantee has already been encashed and to substitute the same, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned notice. However, as the petitioner asserted that it would take some time to comply with the formalities in the bank for furnishing the fresh bank guarantee, and taking into account the fact that the other bank guarantee is in force, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee in terms of the notice, dated 08.11.2010, in Crime No.B4/931/2010/ESS, on or before 10th of December 2010. Further, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to take coercive steps against the petitioner under Section 31(1)(a) of the Act and under Rule 20 of the Rules, pursuant to the impugned notice. However, it is made clear that if the bank guarantee is not furnished by the petitioner by 10th of December 2010, it is open for the respondents to take further steps in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ 19th November 2010 R.SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr