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 2009, and therefore, those four petitioner-A4 licencees filed petitions praying to amend the prayer in the writ petitions to question the order of suspension of their licences, which were ordered. The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise is yet to pass orders on the explanations submitted by the petitioner-A4 licencees in W.P. Nos. 7122, 7125, 7126 and 7197 of 2009, and therefore, the petitioner-A4 licencees in the said writ petitions, are only questioning the show cause notices issued to them by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise.

While the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 6662 and 7050 of 2009 are questioning the orders passed by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, directly suspending their A4 licences without issuing any notice.

The petitioner in W.P. No. 7197 of 2009, who claims to be the General Secretary of an organization called “Consumer Care Centre” filed the writ petition to direct the respondents to stop sale of liquor through their licencees including Bars till 23.04.2009. He mainly contends that on the eve of elections, the sale of liquor through illegal outlets, has increased multi-fold, and that with a view to influence the voters, the contesting candidates are storing the liquor for supplying on the dry days. That with a view to maintain law and order and ensure that free and fair elections are held, it is appropriate that the Government should be directed to close down all the liquor shops till elections are held, particularly when Article 47 of the Constitution, casts duty on the State to make an endeavour to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks which are injurious to health.

The learned counsel for the petitioner-A4 licencees, in cases where the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise issued notices and after considering the explanations of the A4 licencees, either passed orders of suspension or is yet to pass orders submitted that issuance of show cause notices in only an empty formality for the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise has pre-determined to close down the liquor shops on the eve of general elections to the constituencies of the Parliament and State Assembly at the instance of the Election Commission and the police officials, who are bestowed with the duty of conducting free and fair elections and to maintain the law and order respectively.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without there being any violations committed by the licencees either of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder or the licence conditions, the respondents for the purpose of statistics to show to the Election Commission as to the steps taken by them to curb the sale of liquor, are issuing notices for suspension of licences on flimsy and vague grounds, and to strengthen this ar