( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Government pleader for Prohibition and Excise and the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the fourth respondent was granted licence in Form IL 24 for the Excise Year 1997-98 in the name and style of M/s. Sreenivasa Wines at Somasila, Nellore district The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, atmakur, along with his staff conducted inspection at the shop of the fourth respondent and a case was registered on 14. 5. 1998 for the offence under Section 36 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short the Act ) for conducting loose sales, which is in contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence and Rule 23 (xiii) of the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short the Rules ). Pursuant to that the authorities passed orders suspending his licence on 16. 5. 1998 and the fourth respondent filed W. P. No. 14479 of 1998 challenging the suspension order, which was disposed of on 28. 5. 1998 directing conduct of enquiry under the provisions of the Act and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and confirmed the charge of indulging in loose sale and the licence of the fourth respondent was cancelled by order dated 4. 11. 1998. The said cancellation was also confirmed in appeal and further appeal by appellate orders dated 10. 3. 1999 and 25. 6. 1999 respectively. More than two years after the order of cancellation and its confirmation in the appeal and further appeal, the fourth respondent preferred a revision in April, 2001, which was allowed by the Government Order vide G. O. Rt. No. 952 Revenue (Excise III) Department, dated 3. 5. 2001 directing the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to restore the licence and accordingly the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise vide his order dated 5. 5. 2001 restored the licence of the fourth respondent. The revision was allowed on the benefit of doubt by the Government in favour of the fourth respondent.

( 3 ) PETITIONER questioned the said order of the Government in W. P. No. 10638 of 2002, which was allowed along with W. P. No. 2679 of 2001 and batch dated 27. 11. 2001 in the case of Vishawnatha Ravi Kumar and others v. Government of A. P. , Revenue (Excise) Department and others, 2002 (2) ALD 29 = 2001 (6) ALT 406. In the said judgment, the revision orders of Government and the consequential orders of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, nellore were quashed, and accordingly the licence of the fourth respondent was cancelled on 8. 1. 2002.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY no writ appeal has been filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 10638 of 2002 and no Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Supreme Court either by the fourth respondent or by the Government. Only the SLP s filed by some of the similarly situated persons like the fourth respondent are pending in the Supreme Court against the Division Bench judgment of this Court.

( 5 ) FOR the offences committed by the fourth respondent under Section 36 (c) of the Act read with Rule 23 (xiii) of the Rules, the fourth respondent was tried before the Criminal Court and charge-sheet was filed in C. C. No. 324 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nellore District. After trial, the Court found the fourth respondent not guilty of the said offence holding that the evidence placed before the Court is inconsistent, self-contradictory and no cogent and convincing reasons were put forth by the prosecution, as such on the benefit of doubt the accused/fourth respondent was acquitted under Section 225 (1) Cr. P. C. by judgment dated 30. 6. 2004.

( 6 ) AFTER acquittal, the fourth respondent made a representation before the Government for restoration of the licence in view of the acquittal in criminal case. On the said representation the Government issued the impu