( 1. ) PETITIONER a licensed liquor dealer having a foreign liquor license granted under M. P. Excise Act, feels aggrieved by the order Annexure P-l, dated 27-9-2005 passed by Excise Commissioner, Gwalior exercising power under section 31 (1) (kha) of the M. P. Excise Act, suspending the FL9 licence of the petitioner.

( 2. ) PETITIONERS are a company registered under Companies Act and have been granted FL9 licence by Excise Commissioner. Grievance of the petitioners is that even though they have not committed any violation of the terms and conditions of the license nor have they acted in contravention of any statutory rules or regulation but by the impugned order passed on some inspection conducted by the Flying Squad on 21-9-2005, license of the petitioner was suspended. Inter alia contending that the suspension of the license cannot be done without issuing show-cause notice and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, petitioner seeks interference by this Court. Inviting my attention to the provisions of Section 31 (1-A) of the M. P. Excise Act, 1915, shri M. P. S. Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the statutory provision, even for passing an order of suspension of the license the authority has to record a reason for the proposed action, furnishes to the holder of the license a brief statement of the same and only after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, license can be suspended. Shri M. P. S. Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the present case, license has been suspended on 27-9-2005 without issuing any show-cause notice, without giving any opportunity of hearing and the show cause has been issued only on 7-10-2005 vide Annexure R-4, i. e. , after filing of the present petition for cancellation of the license. It is the case of the petitioner that when notices were issued by this Court on 5-10-2005, and when the notices were served on the respondents for appearance before this Court, it was then only that the show-cause notice for cancellation has been issued. Inter alia contending that even for suspending a license show-cause notice, and opportunity of hearing is required to be granted, petitioner seeks quashing of the order of suspension. ( 3. ) ON notice being issued, respondents have filed return. Shri Brijesh sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present petition before this Court. It is pointed out by Shri Sharma that under Section 62 (c) of the M. P. Excise Act, remedy of appeal is available before the Chief Revenue Authority, i. e. , Board of revenue. Therefore, petition directly before this Court is not permissible. That apart, it is argued by Shri Brijesh Sharma that in accordance with the statutory rules, petitioner can challenge the order of suspension by filing representation before Excise Commissioner within seven days and therefore, petition directly before this Court is not appropriate remedy. That apart, pointing out that in the inspection conducted in the premise of the petitioner on 21st September, 2005, various irregularities were found, respondents seek dismissal of this petition.

( 4. ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is seen from the record that the authorities of the Excise Department had conducted a surprise check on the premises of the petitioner on 21-9-2005 at 1 PM and the only irregularity found at the time of checking was that the door for entry into the bottling room even though sealed by the department was not properly maintained and by pushing the door, the l drop falls and entry can be made in the bottling room and subsequently into the other premises where the spirit was kept and where manufacturing unit is situated. Inter alia finding irregularity in the matter of maintaining the door and entry to the room action is taken against the petitioner. Apart from the above, no other i