SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(AP) 262

N.V.RAMANA
K. Bhaya reddy – Appellant
Versus
Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, kadapa (FAC) – Respondent


Common order:


Save the petitioner in W.P. No. 7197 of 2009, the petitioners in all other writ petitions are A4-licence holders, and they having been granted the lease of right to sell liquor by shop for the lease years 2008-10 by the Government, are doing business of selling liquor by shop. While so, the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, issued notices calling upon the petitioner-A4 licence holders (except the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 6662 and 7050 of 2009) to show cause as to why their A4 licences should not be suspended under

Section 31(1)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’) for violating the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).

The petitioner-A4 licencees after submitting their explanations, filed writ petitions questioning the show cause notices issued to them by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise. While the writ petitions filed by them are pending, the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, after considering their explanations, passed orders suspending the A4 licences of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 6971, 6972, 6995 and 6996 of















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top