Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, C.J., RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
Botta Lakshmi Pavani - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 812 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 - Sections 31 and 32 - Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Bar, Grant and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2022 - Suspension of bar licence - Deputy Commissioner suspended the licence without providing relevant material and failed to prescribe a suspension period, violating principles of natural justice - The learned single Judge partly accepted the appeal but dismissed the petition. (Paras 7, 8, 11, 18, 24)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - A quasi-judicial authority must disclose relevant material to the party affected by its decision to ensure fair proceedings - Non-furnishing of material that influenced the decision renders the order unsustainable. (Paras 18, 22, 24)
(C) Non-speaking Orders - An order must articulate reasons for its conclusions; failure to do so results in a lack of accountability and transparency. (Paras 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The Deputy Commissioner suspended the appellant's bar licence for operating beyond permitted hours, based on reports from police and the District Prohibition & Excise Officer. The appellant denied the allegations and contended that relevant materials were not disclosed. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order of suspension was unsustainable due to the lack of prescribed duration and the failure to provide relevant materials to the appellant. (Paras 24-25)
Issues: The main issues included whether the suspension order was valid without a specified duration and whether the principles of natural justice were violated. (Paras 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-disclosure of relevant materials violated natural justice principles, and a non-speaking order lacks the necessary justification for its conclusions. (Paras 24)
Result: The writ appeal is allowed, and the order of suspension is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, C.J.
The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 23.09.2024, passed in W.P. No.19812 of 2024.
Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:
2. The genesis of the present controversy lies in the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Visakhapatnam, who by virtue of its order, dated 06.09.2024, suspended the bar licence of the appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 31 and 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, r/w rule 61 & 62 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of right of Selling by Bar, Grant and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules").
3. Preceding the order impugned, dated 06.09.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, a show cause notice, dated 20.08.2024, was served upon the appellant requiring her to show cause as to why the licence issued in her favour be not suspended. According to the show cause notice, the District Prohibition & Excise Officer (DPEO), Visakhapatnam, had submitted a report stating that the Inspector of Police, III Town police station, Visakhapatnam, had submitted a report stating that on 17.08.2024, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, made a surprise check at M/s. Island Bistro Bar & Restaurant on Beach Road, Visakhapatnam, and found that the Restaurant & Bar was open and was conducting business by operating beyond the permitted business hours.
According to the DPEO, as per rules, the Bar and Restaurant has to close the sale of liquor by 11 p.m. and service of food by 12 midnight but the management was running the Bar and Restaurant after the business hours.
4. The show cause notice further recorded, based upon the said report of the DPEO, that on 23.06.2024, the police patrol found the Bistro Bar and Restaurant serving liquor and food at 00.20 hours for which a case in Crime No.157 of 2024 under section 188 IPC was recorded with Police Station Visakhapatnam City, and was under investigation.
The show cause notice further recorded that on 16.03.2024 at night, while the Bar & Restaurant was running its business beyond the permissible hours and while the Police was conducting the drunken driving tests near the said Bar, a car driver rashly drove his car without obeying the signals of the police staff to stop the vehicle and thereby obstructed the police personnel from performing their duty in regard to which Crime No.55 of 2024 under Section 353 IPC was registered with the Visakhapatnam City Police Station and was under investigation. The incident also was thus attributed to the running of the Bar and Restaurant of the petitioner/appellant herein beyond the permissible hours.
The show cause notice further reflects that the Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, had requested for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner to prevent assault on public servants and to prevent quarrels between drunkards in the area. CCTV footage recorded in a pendrive also appears to have been submitted to the DPEO to that effect along with transaction bills that liquor was being sold beyond the hours of business as per excise rules.
5. Reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner in which the allegations leveled in the show cause notice that the petitioner was selling liquor beyond the business hours was emphatically denied. It was denied that there had been any violation of the terms and conditions of the licence or the Rules or the Act of 1968.
The appellant in its reply to the show cause notice, further took a stand that the contents of the report and the proceedings referred to by the DPEO had not been enclosed with the show cause notice. It was also denied by the appellant that the incident pertaining to the driver of a car had no connection whatsoever with the Bar of the appellant and that it related to rash and negligent driving by a car bearing number AP 37 BD 5177 in regard to which case under section 353 IP
Suspension of a bar licence without disclosing relevant materials and failing to specify a duration violates principles of natural justice, rendering the order unsustainable.
Administrative orders must provide clear reasoning and specify durations to comply with natural justice principles, ensuring transparency and fairness.
Suspension of bar license declared illegal due to lack of reasons and violation of natural justice principles.
The cancellation of a license under the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 without providing reasonable notice or opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.
Point of Law : For want of the inspection report before this Court, it cannot be presumed that the substance of the inspection report or the summary of the documents was furnished and that the summar....
The State Government holds the authority to regulate excise shop locations and close them without notice if due procedure was followed.
The court established that any administrative action affecting rights must comply with the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing.
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
