( 1 ) THE petitioner is a wine shop owner in Somendapalli village in anantapur District. He was granted with an IL-24 licence under the provisions of the a. P. Excise Act for the Excise year 1998-99 by the Excise Department. The petitioner then commenced his business in the name and style of M/s. Pawn Wines at somandapalli village.

( 2 ) ON 7-11-1998 at about 10 a. m. , during the raids conducted by the officers of the Prohibition and Excise Department, hindupur, it was found that a person by name Mangala Maruthi Prasad was standing with a polythene bag at the tank bound situated at a distance of 1 1/2 K. Ms, from somandapally on N. H. No. 7 road. On suspicion, the said Mangala Maruthi Prasad was detained by the Prohibition and Excise inspector i. e. , the 4th respondent herein. On enquiry,. it appears that the said Mangala maruthi Prasad has stated that he was carrying about 150 arrack sanchets, each containing 100 ml of arrack. It appears that the said person further stated that the said arrack sachets were supplied by the petitioner for selling it at Somandepally on commission basis. Thereupon, the 4th respondent- prohibition and Excise Inspector drawn samples of the arrack for chemical analysis, arrested the said Mangala Maruthi Prasad, sezied the property and registered a case in crime No. 47 of 1998-99 under Section 7 (1) read with Section 8 (e) of the A. P. Prohibition act 1995.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, on the basis of the confessional statement made by the said mangala Maruthi Prasad, the 3rd respondent- prohibition and Excise Superintendent by his order dated 27-11-1998 suspended the licence granted to the petitioner pending investigation into the matter.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the 3rd responderit- prohibition and Excise Superintendent, in his proceedings dated 27-11-1998 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the licence granted to him cannot be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto. A second show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20-12-1998, but, instead of submitting his explanation to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise explaining his case as to why his licence cannot be cancelled. On that the 2nd respondnet- deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and excise informed the petitioner, on 12-1- 1999 that since the enquiry was pending before the 3rd respondent-Prohibition and excise Superintendent, the request of the petitioner to restore his licence could not be considered.

( 5 ) THE 3rd respondent-Prohibition and excise Superintendent then issued an order in Re. N0. 1004/98/a1 dated 14-1-1999, cancelling the licence of the petitioner bearing L No. 222/98-99, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 31 (1) of A. P. Excise Act, 1961 read with Rule 66 of A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor rules, 1970. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of prohibition and Excise.

( 6 ) THE main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner in that appeal was that his licence cannot be cancelled on the basis of a mere confessional statement of an accused person in Crime No. 47 of 1998-99 without there being any independent evidence regarding the involvement of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent-Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, while agreeing with the aforesaid contention, held the petitioner guilty on the ground that he was caught red handed by the police in an another case in Crime No. 27 of 1998 on 5-5-1998 while carrying arrack sachets. Accordingly, he confirmed the order passed by the 3rd respodnent-Prohibition and Excise superintendent by his order dated 4-3-1999.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a further appeal to the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and excise as provided under Section 63 of the a.