Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
N.R. Wines – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. license suspension after fir without sufficient notice. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner seeks compounding of offences. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court agrees that petitioner should have opportunity to compound. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. violation of natural justice principles in suspension order. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. writ petition succeeded; order set aside. (Para 10) |
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
Suspension of a liquor license without allowing statutory time for compounding violates natural justice and statutory rights, necessitating review and compliance with procedural safeguards.
The Excise Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to compound offences under Section 75 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, as authority is reserved for the Collector or specific Excise Officers.
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
