Point of Law: Even otherwise, it is the duty of Quasi Judicial Authority to state its reasons on each issue by due application of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused consideration; a slipshod consideration or cryptic order without due reflection on issues raised in the matter may render such decree unsustainable and therefore, hasty adjudication must be avoided and each and every matter that comes to the Quasi Judicial Authority must be examined with seriousness it deserves as held by the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees of Martyr Memorial Trust and another v. Union of India and another

ORDER :

(Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App(virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 Pandemic).

1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the order of the 3rd respondent issued in R.C.No.391/2019/C1 dated 27.04.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct the business and pass such other orders as deemed fit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents and with their consent, the present Writ Petition is disposed off, keeping in view the legal issues raised in the present Writ Petition and the relevant precedents governing the same.

3. This is a second round of litigation. The petitioner is a Form 2B license holder to run a Bar and Restaurant as per the provisions of the A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2017 and he is conducting the business in the name and style of P.V.R.Restaurant and Bar at Kadiri.

4. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, earlier the petitioner was visited with a show cause notice dated 21.12.2019. The basis for the show cause notice is a report of respondent No.4 submitted with reference to report of the respondent No.5 to the effect that during the surprise inspection of bar premises conducted on 25.10.2019, no certified measures were used and that six loose liquor bottles were found on the bar counter and strength of the liquor was found to be 24.9, 24.6, 26.0, 26.0, 24.6 and 24.3 of UP respectively and in the chemical examination of samples drawn, the report revealed that the strength of the liquor in respect of one bottle is 26.0 UP and the same was diluted Indian Made Liquor and other samples are Indian Made Liquor. The petitioner was granted seven(7) days time for submission of explanation and thereafter an order dated 27.01.2020 was passed, suspending the license granted, pending enquiry. On the premise that the said order was illegal, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Excise Act, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2259 of 2020 before this Court inter-alia contending that the order impugned therein is contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice etc., A Learned Single Judge by an order dated 11.03.2020 allowed the said Writ Petition and set aside the order of suspension dated 27.01.2020 with an observation that the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action by issuing a show cause notice afresh granting 15 days time. The license of the bar was under suspension from 27.01.2020 to 11.03.2020 till passing of order in Writ Petition No.2259 of 2020.

5. After disposal of Writ Petition No.2259 of 2020, a fresh show cause notice dated 13.03.2020 was issued to petitioner to show cause as to why the license shall not be suspended and 15 days time was granted for submission of explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 22.04.2020 and thereafter respondent No.3 passed an order of suspension in R.C.No.391/2019/C1, dated 27.04.2020. The said order is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia, contends that the respondent No.3 passed the order under challenge without exercising the discretion vested in him. The learned counsel submits that while disposing off the earlier Writ Petition, this Court granted mere liberty to the respondent No.3 to issue show cause notice afresh, but the respondent No.3 instead of exercising his discretion issued the fresh notice in a mechanical manner without application of mind, as if, this Court had directed to issue show cause notice. The learned counsel while contending that the discretion has to be exercised by taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations submits that the variation in the strength of liquor is minimal which could be