Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Runkana Nagabhushana Rao vs The State Of Ap on 11 January, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.33 of 2024
Between:
Runkana Nagabhushana Rao,
S/o. Parameshu, aged 53 years,
Occ: Business of
M/s. SSG Restaurant and Bar,
Ward No.7, NH Main Road, Saluru,
Parvathipuram Manyam District.
...Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Prohibition & Excise Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District & three others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Tota Tejeswara Rao
Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 : Learned Government Pleader
for Prohibition & Excise.
HCJ & RRR, J
2 W.A.No.33 of 2024
Dt.:11.01.2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
2. The appellant herein was running a bar in Eluru, after
obtaining the necessary licence. This bar was inspected by the
Excise officials on 06.10.2023. In the course of inspection, the
inspection team had found that the person conducting business at
the counter of the bar, did not have a nowkarnama, as required
under Rule 48(A) of the Bar Rules, 2022 read with Section
31(1)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. On this basis, notices were
issued to the appellant and the Deputy Commissioner of
Prohibition and Excise, who is the 3rd respondent in these
proceedings, by order dated 08.11.2023, had suspended the
licence of the bar of the appellant.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had
approached this Court by way of W.P.No.30023 of 2023
contending that the appellant had not been granted appropriate
hearing and that the order did not contain any reasons which
warranted suspension of the licence.
4. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 21.11.2023,
had dismissed the writ petition holding that the order of
suspension had been passed after giving adequate notice and
HCJ & RRR, J
opportunity to the appellant and after considering the
explanation given by the appellant. The learned Judge also held
that the appellant had an effective alternative remedy of appeal
before the appropriate authority under Section 63(2) of the A.P.
Excise Act, 1968, and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by
the said order, the appellant has moved the present writ appeal.
5. While any order of the authorities of the State may be
challenged before this Court, by way of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, it would remain the prerogative of this
Court to decide whether such a writ petition would be taken up
especially in a case where an effective alternative remedy is
available. In the present case, the learned Single Judge took the
view that the right of appeal, mentioned above is an effective
alternative remedy and as such entertaining the writ petition was
not appropriate.
6. We do not find any ground to interfere in the said
order. It may also be noted that a writ petition would normally be
entertained, even in a case where an effective alternative remedy
is available when the impugned order suffers from violation of
principles of natural justice, violation of fundamental rights or for
any special reason. In the present case, none of these conditions
exists.
HCJ & RRR, J
7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
JS
HCJ & RRR, J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
11th January, 2024
JS
