IMPORTANT POINT
Suspension of bar license declared illegal due to lack of reasons and violation of natural justice principles.

ORDER :

Subba Reddy Satti, J.

1. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Narsi Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The writ petition is filed to declare the suspension order vide Rc.No.B/112/2022 dated 29.04.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool, in suspending the petitioner's Bar license without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, without affording opportunity of personal hearing and without assigning any reasons, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that show-cause notice vide Rc.No.B/112/2022 dated 20.04.2024 was issued to the petitioner pursuant to registration of case in Crime No.215 of 2024 dated 18.04.2024 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Kadapa under Section 36(1) (b&c), 41 of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 r/w Rules 31, 41 and 48 of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Bar, Grant and conditions of License) Rules, 2022. Ten days' time was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted explanation on 29.04.2024. On the same day, the 3rd respondent passed order suspending the license vide proceedings Rc.No.B/112/2022 dated 29.04.2023.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order of suspension suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. He would also submit that the order of suspension does not indicate the reasons for suspending the petitioner's bar license. In support of the said contention, learned Senior Counsel placed relied upon the judgment reported in case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota vs. M/s. Shukla & Brothers { 2010:INSC:209 : (2010) 30 VST 114(SC)}.

5. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand would contend that after considering the explanation, the suspension order dated 29.04.2024 was passed. The petitioner is having effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 63(2) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 before the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh , Vijayawada.

6. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

7. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings impugned, the authority afforded opportunity to the petitioner and assigned reasons? If not, the proceedings are liable to be set aside.

8. As seen from the contents of suspension of 2B Bar license, the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau (SEB) conducted decoy operation. Accordingly, the Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Kadapa has purchased one 180 ml liquor bottle of Old Admiral VSOP Brandy, Enforcement Constable, SEB Kadapa Station has purchased two 180 ml liquor bottles of Daaru House Brandy; ESI, Kadapa Station has purchased one 180 ml liquor bottle of Royal Palace VSOP Brandy. The authority made another person to purchase one 180 ml of Old Admiral VSOP Brandy and one 180 ml of Royal Palace VSOP Brandy etc. A case in Crime No.215 of 2024 was registered for the offences referred to supra. Show cause notice was issued and the petitioner submitted explanation and pleaded that he did not violate the conditions.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that the order of suspension, impugned, is running into six pages. The first two and half pages of the order contain the details of case. Third page bottom to fourth page, the petitioner's explanation was extracted. At the bottom of page 4 findings were recorded.

10. In the findings, the authority extracted Rules, 41, 31, 48, 61 and 62 of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Bar, Grant and conditions of license) Rules 2022. Eventually, the authority concluded that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is carefully examined and it is not satisfactory. No reasons much less valid reasons were assigned by authority except stati