( 1 ) BRIEF factual overview of the Writ petitions: all these writ petitions involve common question of law and fact and are thus considered and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) WRIT petitioners herein are either residents of the locality or existing IL 24 licensees, who are aggrieved by the revisional orders of the State Government, by which, orders of cancellation of particular licences during the year 1998-99 by the concerned Excise Superintendents, have been invalidated. Some of the writ petitions are against revisional orders directed not against orders of cancellation, but against non-grant of licences for the current Excise year, to such of those licensees who have surrendered their licences and have also withdrawn the proportionate licence fee for and during the year 1998-99. All these orders of the State Government are passed in purported exercise of the revisional power available under Section 64 of the A. P. Excise act, 1968 (for short the Act ). W. P. No. 2679/2001;

( 3 ) THE writ petitioner is an existing IL 24 licensee of L. Kota village, Vizianagaram district. The 4th respondent s licence was cancelled b y the Excise Superintendent, vizianagaram, by the order dated 26-5-98 on the ground that the licensee indulged in loose sales contrary to the conditions of licence. This order was challenged in a writ petition in this Court. After disposal of the said writ petition an enquiry was conducted and the cancellation of licence confirmed by the order dated 31-10-98. The 4th respondent filed a representation dated 12-12-2000. This representation was considered as a revision petition and allowed setting aside the order of the Excise Superintendent, Vizianagaram, in G. O. Rt. No. 371 Revenue (Excise III) department, dated 14-2-2001. The reason recorded by the 1st respondent in the said g. O. is-"government, after careful examination of the matter and by giving a benefit of doubt, allowed the revision Petition by setting aside the orders of Excise Superintendent, vizianagaram. "w. P. No. 10413/2001;

( 4 ) THE petitioner is an Ex-Councilor claiming to be a social worker of parvathipuram Municipality, Vizianagaram district. The order of the 1st respondent in g. O. Rt. No. 789, Revenue (Excise HI) department, dated 14-2-2001 is challenged. It is alleged that 4th respondent s husband was an IL 24 licensee for the Excise year 1998-99. Despite having a licence only to sell liquor in bottles, he was running a bar in the licensed premises. After number of representations including by the petitioner, in a raid conducted on 20-7-98 the licensed premises was inspected, licence suspended on 23-7-98 and eventually cancelled by the orders dated 18-8-98. The laboratory analysis of the liquor sold in the licensed premises showed adulteration. Appeals were thereafter filed to the Dy. Commissioner and commissioner, which were rejected by the orders dated 14-9-98 and 31-1-99. Thereafter W. P. No. 4161/2000 was filed by the licencee alleging that his representation dated 7-2-2000 was pending before the 2nd respondent. This writ petition was disposed of directing consideration of the representation. Though no representation was pending, in compliance with the order of this Court, the 2nd respondent called for a representation from the 4th respondent and disposed of the same by the order dated 25-10-200, declining the request of compounding the offence, on the ground that the appeals were already dismissed and the offence committed too serious to justify compounding. Thereafter, the licensee (husband of R-4) preferred a representation dated 2-11-2000, which having been treated as a revision petition, was allowed by the impugned order. It is seen that more than 21/2 years after the cancellation of the licence by the Excise Superintendent, after the orders of cancellation have been confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition and excise, Visakhapatnam on appeal and bythe commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in a f