Suspension of a liquor license without allowing statutory time for compounding violates natural justice and statutory rights, necessitating review and compliance with procedural safeguards.

ORDER :

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order vide Rc.No.30/2025/B1 dated 17.05.2025 passed by Respondent No.4 under Section 31 (1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1986 read with Rule 57 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Rules, 2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1986 and the Rules made thereunder violative of the principles of the natural Justice and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order vide Rc.No.30/2025/BI dated 17.05.2025 of the 4th Respondent and pass such other order or orders...”

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was granted license for sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Foreign Liquor (FL) for the period commencing from 11.02.2025 to 30.09.2026 in respect of the A4 shop situated at Sy.No.340/14 of Garlapeta Village, Garlapeta Panchayat, Marripudi Mandal. The petitioner has been running the subject shop underthe name and style of M/s. N.R. Wines in accordance with the terms and conditions as stipulated under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1986 and the Rules there under. While things stood thus, FIR was registered on 29.04.2025 against the petitioner for the offences alleged to have been committed under Section 36(1 )(b) & (c) r/w Rule 32 of A.P. Excise Rules, 2024 by allegedly selling of IMFL at a price exceeding the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). Subsequently, the respondent No.4 issued show cause notice dated 07.05.2025 but served on 12.05.2025, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him for violation of maximum retail price. For which, the petitioner herein submitted his reply on 17.05.2025 denying all the allegations, But, on the very same date, respondent No.4 passed an impugned order dated 17.05.2025 suspending the license granted to the petitioner under Section 31 (1)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1986 r/w Rule 57 of AP Excise Rules 2024.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1986 empowers the competent authority, namely, respondent no.4 to compound the offences falling under Section 31 (1)(b) of the said Act by accepting a sum of money towards penal amount as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time provided that an application for such compounding is submitted prior to the issuance of an order of suspension and canceliation of the license. it is submitted that Rule 5(1) of the compounding Ruies confers a right upon the petitioner to submit a written appiication requesting for compounding of the alleged offences within 15 days from the date of receipt of show cause notice. But in the case on hand, the show notice was issued on 07.05.2025 (12.05.2025) and the license was suspended on 17.05.2025. Therefore, the petitioner was precluded from exercising his statutory right to seek for compounding of the alleged offence under Section 47 of the Act as on 17.05.2025, which is much before to the expiry of the 15 days statutory period prescribed under the compounding Rules. As such, without affording adequate time or opportunity to invoke the remedy of compounding as contemplated, the respondent No.4 passed the impugned suspension order dated 17.05.2025 is contrary to the statutory observations as contemplated under law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned cou