Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.ESWARAIAH
A. Subbarami Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise, Tirupathi - Respondent
Decided On : 08/03/2007
Case No : Writ Petition Nos.16637 of 2007, 16638 of 2007 and 16642 of 2007
A.P. Excise Rules, 2005 – Rule 4 of Rule 17 – A.P. Excise Act, 1968 – Section 31(1) – Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence - Writ Petitions similar contentions have been raised and by different impugned orders licences of the petitioners have been suspended pending enquiry Writ Petitions have been filed questioning the said suspension orders passed by the 1st respondent-Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise and to declare the said orders as illegal, against the principles of natural justice, and violative of the judgments of this Court Petitioner in is the licencee Wines shop No.30 petitioner in is the licencee Wines shop of village rural mandal and the petitioner in is the licencee of Wines shop village in different house numbers though all the shops are named but the licecees are different aforesaid three licences have been suspended pending enquiry by the impugned order for the following reason it is stated that on reliable information the Excise officials (raid party) visited the house of one and found four accused namely and detected thirty-two cans each with 35 lts of spurious liquor, two cartons each of spurious liquor, one sealing machine one cork threading machine, five plastic trays, plastic tub four bundles of brand labels, gum bottles, two sheets of EALs in the house and six cartons each with 48 bottles of spurious liquor in which was kept in front of the house was the driver of the said it is stated that on interrogation Reddy informed the Excise officials that the said spurious liquor is being supplied through to the said shop and accordingly the raid party also raided the said Wines shop Nos.3, 4 and 5, interrogated the Cashiers of the said shops who were found selling the liquor and they stated that as per the instructions of their owner they are selling the spurious liquor bottles and on search they have detected three cartons of spurious liquor –Held, Whether the suspension of licence must be preceded by a notice or opportunity must depend upon various factors such as, degree of urgency involved, the duration of suspension nature of the breach, public danger to be avoided, and other similar circumstances which warrant an immediate action where it is not feasible or possible or even advisable to give an opportunity to the holders of the licences before passing interim orders of suspension Full Bench held that the licencing authority has got ancillary and incidental powers of suspending a licence or permit pending enquiry in a given case if the circumstances clearly warrant and taking into account the urgency in the case court of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that as per the aforesaid two judgments of the Division Bench and the judgment of the learned single Judge the licence cannot be suspended pending enquiry, cannot be accepted in view of the authoritative judgment of the Full Bench of this court. Insofar as the cases on hand are concerned, the panchanama recorded by the Excise officials goes to show that the accused have been manufacturing the spurious liquor and even supplied to the petitioners’ shops as confessed by their holders and Cashiers and in fact, they have also raided the shops of the petitioners and the link has been established. If the said allegations are true, court of the opinion that the violations are serious in nature as the sale of spurious liquor is injurious to public health apart from loss of huge revenue to the Exchequer – Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Common Order:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleaders for Prohibition & Excise; and Home appearing for the respondents.
2. In all these Writ Petitions similar contentions have been raised and by different impugned orders, dated 23-07-2007, the licences of the petitioners have been suspended pending enquiry. These Writ Petitions have been filed questioning the said suspension orders passed by the 1st respondent-Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise and to declare the said orders as illegal, against the principles of natural justice, and violative of the judgments of this Court.
3. Petitioner in W.P.No.16637 of 2007 is the licencee of M/s Raghava Wines shop No.3 situated at Durgasamudram village, Tirupathi Rural mandal; petitioner in W.P.No.16638 of 2007 is the licencee of M/s Raghava Wines shop No.4 of Pudipatla village, Tirupathi rural mandal; and the petitioner in W.P.No.16642 of 2007 is the licencee of M/s Raghava Wines shop No.5 at Pudipatla village in different house numbers. Though all the shops are named ‘M/s Raghava Wines’ but the licecees are different. All the aforesaid three licences have been suspended pending enquiry by the impugned order, dated 23-07-2007, for the following reasons:
“It is stated that on 22-07-2007 on reliable information the Excise officials (raid party) visited the house of one N. Pitchireddy located at Udyoganagar of Tirupathi rural mandal and found four accused namely 1) J. Ravindrakumar Reddy 2) B. Ravibabu 3) Mula Kumar and 4) K. Sudhakar and detected thirtytwo cans each with 35 lts of spurious liquor, two cartons each 48 bottles of 180 ml (total 96 bottles) of spurious liquor, one sealing machine, one cork threading machine, five plastic trays, plastic tub, 4380 corks, four bundles of brand labels, gum bottles, two sheets of EALs in the house and six cartons each with 48 bottles of 180 ml (total 268 bottles ) of spurious liquor in Maruthi Zipsi which was kept in front of the house. A4-K. Sudhakar was the driver of the said Maruthi Zipsy. It is stated that on interrogation A1-J. Ravindrakumar Reddy informed the Excise officials that the said spurious liquor is being supplied through Raghavareddy to the said shop and accordingly the raid party also raided the said M/s Raghava Wines shop Nos.3, 4 and 5, interrogated the Cashiers of the said shops who were found selling the liquor and they stated that as per the instructions of their owner they are selling the spurious liquor bottles and on search they have detected three cartons of spurious liquor. On the confessions/ statements of the Cashiers, who stated that as per the instructions of the owner, they have been keeping the spurious liquor in the back side of the shop and selling by taking advantage of the situation and based on the confessional statement of the accused-driver of the said J. Ravindrakumar Reddy, who is said to have been connected with the owner of the liquor shops, the three shops licences have been suspended, pending enquiry on the ground that there is a link between the illicit manufacturers of the spurious liquor and the petitioners as admitted/confessed by their cashiers/naukars which amounts to serious violation of licence conditions and also as per sub-Rule 4 of Rule 17 of the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for brevity ‘the Rules’), which says: “Every act of the authorized agent or servant shall be deemed to be an act of the lease holder”.
4. In view of the aforesaid prima facie case; in view of the breach of the conditions of the licence, and also as the sale of liquor is injurious to public health and also loss to the Government Exchequer, licences have been suspended pending enquiry.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per Proviso to Section 31(1) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) no licence permit shall be cancelled or suspended unless the holder there
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
