Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S.Teja Bar And Restaurant vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 May, 2024

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
                WRIT PETITION No.10271 OF 2024

M/s Teja Bar and Restaurant, D.No.4/608 & 4/609, Ayyaswamy Pillai
Street, Near Old Bus Stand, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, YSR
Kadapa District, represented by its Licensee G.Tejdeep Reddy.
                                          ... Petitioner
Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal
Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District and two others.

                                      ... Respondents

Counsels for the petitioner    : Sri Ravula Nagarjuna

Counsel for respondents       : GP for Excise

                              ORDER

Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted

by Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Narsi Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise

appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The writ petition is filed to declare the suspension order vide

Rc.No.B/112/2022 dated 29.04.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent-

Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool, in suspending

the petitioner's Bar license without considering the explanation

SRS, J

submitted by the petitioner, without affording opportunity of personal

hearing and without assigning any reasons, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that show-cause notice vide

Rc.No.B/112/2022 dated 20.04.2024 was issued to the petitioner

pursuant to registration of case in Crime No.215 of 2024 dated

18.04.2024 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Kadapa under

Section 36(1) (b&c), 41 of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 r/w

Rules 31, 41 and 48 of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of

Selling by Bar, Grant and conditions of License) Rules, 2022. Ten

days' time was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation. The

petitioner submitted explanation on 29.04.2024. On the same day,

the 3rd respondent passed order suspending the license vide

proceedings Rc.No.B/112/2022 dated 29.04.2023.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order of

suspension suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. He

would also submit that the order of suspension does not indicate the

reasons for suspending the petitioner's bar license. In support of the

said contention, learned Senior Counsel placed relied upon the

judgment reported in case of Assistant Commissioner,

SRS, J

Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota

vs. M/s Shukla & Brothers1.

5. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand would

contend that after considering the explanation, the suspension order

dated 29.04.2024 was passed. The petitioner is having effective

alternative remedy of appeal under Section 63(2) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act, 1968 before the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise,

A.P., Vijayawada.

6. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition

is disposed of at the stage of admission.

7. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings

impugned, the authority afforded opportunity to the petitioner and

assigned reasons? If not, the proceedings are liable to be set aside.

8. As seen from the contents of suspension of 2B Bar license,

the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau (SEB)

conducted decoy operation. Accordingly, the Enforcement Inspector,

SEB Station, Kadapa has purchased one 180 ml liquor bottle of Old

Admiral VSOP Brandy, Enforcement Constable, SEB Kadapa

Station has purchased two 180 ml liquor bottles of Daaru House

{(2010) 30 VST 114(SC)}

SRS, J

Brandy; ESI, Kadapa Station has purchased one 180 ml liquor bottle

of Royal Palace VSOP Brandy. The authority made another person

to purchase one 180 ml of Old Admiral VSOP Brandy and one 180

ml of Royal Palace VSOP Brandy etc. A case in Crime No.215 of

2024 was registered for the offences referred to supra. Show cause

notice was issued and the petitioner submitted explanation and

pleaded that he did not violate the conditions.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that the order of suspension,

impugned, is running into six pages. The first two and half pages of

the order contain the details of case. Third page bottom to fourth

page, the petitioner's explanation was extracted. At the bottom of

page 4 findings were recorded.

10. In the findings, the authority extracted Rules, 41, 31, 48, 61

and 62 of A.P.Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Bar, Grant and

conditions of license) Rules 2022. Eventually, the authority

concluded that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is

carefully examined and it is not satisfactory. No reasons much less

valid reasons were assigned by authority except stating that the

explanation is not satisfactory. Reasons are heart and soul of every

order.

SRS, J

11. In Gurdial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab2, the Court held as

under:

"... "Reasons" are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions.."

12. In fact, reasons are heart and soul of the order passed by the

authority. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities;

firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly,

more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union

of India3 while emphasizing the importance of recording of reasons

for decisions by the Administrative authorities and Tribunals

observed that "administrative process will best be vindicated by

clarity in its exercise". Thus, further observed "the orderly functioning

of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the

administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately

sustained."

[(1979) 2 SCC 368]

{(1990) 4 SCC 594}

SRS, J

14. In the case of Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs. Burn

Standard Co. Ltd. And Ors.4 The Apex Court clarified the rationality

behind providing of reasons and stated the principle as follows:

"... Reason is a ground or motive for a belief or a course of action, a statement in justification or explanation of belief or action. it is in this sense that the award must state reasons for the amount awarded.

The rationale of the requirement of reasons is that reasons assure that the arbitrator has not acted capriciously. Reasons reveal the grounds on which the Arbitrator reached the conclusion which adversely affects the interests of a party. The contractual stipulation of reasons means, as held in Poyser and Mills' Arbitration in Re, 'proper adequate reasons'. Such reasons shall not only be intelligible but shall be a reason connected with the case which the Court can see is proper. Contradictory reasons are equal to lack of reasons..."

15. Thus, as seen from the suspension order dated 29.04.2024,

no reasons are assigned except mentioning that the explanation is

not satisfactory. Apart from that, the suspension order, impugned

does not indicate period of suspension. The authority shall mention

period of suspension also in the order. On both counts i.e. violation

of principles of natural justice as also non mentioning of period of

suspension the order cannot withstand the legal scrutiny.

(2006) SLT 345

SRS, J

16. In view of the above discussion, the suspension order vide

Rc.No.B/112/2022 dated 29.04.2023 is liable to be set aside and

accordingly set aside.