COMMON ORDER:

Both these writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by two different petitioners by names R. Venkateswarlu and P. Vasanth Reddy, questioning the orders of suspension of 2B License issued by the third respondent/The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Ananthapuram in Rc.No.391/2019/C1 dated 27.01.2020, challenged in these two writ petitions on identical grounds and therefore, I find it expedient to decide both these writ petitions by common order.

Since, the question involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, W.P.No.2259 of 2020 is taken as leading case.

The petitioner obtained Form-2B License to run Bar &

Restaurant under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Grant of Licensee of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2017 (for short ‘The Rules, 2017’). Ever since the date of grant of license, the petitioner was conducting business in the name and style of Chandu Restaurant and Bar at Kadiri without contravening any of the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘The Act’) and the Rules, 2017 framed therein. While the matter stood thus, the third respondent herein issued a show cause notice on 21.12.2019 alleging that the fourth respondent/Prohibition & Excise Superintendent submitted a report stating that the Station House Officer, Kadiri submitted a report stating that on 14.10.2019 at about 11:45 p.m (23:45 hrs), the Station House Officer, Kadiri along with staff conducted surprise inspection of the bar premises and collected two loose liquor bottles and checked the strength of the liquor and it was found to be 26.4% and 25.4 up. The bottles were sent for chemical examination and the chemical analysis report shown as 26.0 and 26.7 and found that the liquor was diluted. Basing on the said report, the fourth respondent opined that the petitioner has willfully violated the provisions of Section 36(1)(b) & (c) of the Act r/w Rules 27, 33 and 37 of the Rules, 2017 and the third respondent directed the petitioner to submit explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice. As the offence alleged against the petitioner is purely technical in nature, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation within stipulated time and wanted to submit the explanation in the last week of the month and the same was not accepted on the ground that the period prescribed is already over.

It is also further contended that, third respondent herein passed the impugned order suspending the license, pending enquiry and that the action of the third respondent in suspending the license pending enquiry is not legal and the same is arbitrary; that the power to suspend the license is conferred on the third respondent under Section 31 of the Act. A reading of Section 31 of the Act, it is clear that the licensing authority is given the discretion to either suspend or cancel a license. It is submitted that the discretion has to be exercised by the third respondent taking into consideration, the seriousness of the allegations made against the licensee. A reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the liquor strength is 26.4 and 25.4; that once the cap of the liquor bottle is opened, due to atmosphere condition also there would be a change in the strength of the liquor. The variation in the strength of the liquor by the manufacturer would be around 1 to

2 % and normally the change is not taken as a violation.

Similarly, the allegation made against the petitioner in W.P.No.2273 of 2020 is that, the strength of the liquor in respect of one bottle is 26.0 up instead of 24.9, the same is diluted in Indian made liquor.

The specific contention of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that, variation of liquor is very minimal and the third respondent without exercising the discretion conferred on it, mechanically passed the orders impugned in these writ petitions, pending enquiry. Hence, the orders are i