Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Challa Chinna Subba Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 May, 2024
APHC010207702024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [0]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
WRIT PETITION NO: 10235/2024
Between:
Challa Chinna Subba Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. O M R LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE (AP)
The Court made the following:
mpugning the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent-Deputy
Impugning respondent
Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Guntur vide Rc.No.182/2022/B2
Rc.No.182
dated 29.04.2024
.04.2024 whereby the authority suspended 2B Bar license of M/s DV
Restaurant & Bar bearing L.No.22/2022-25,
L.No.22/2022 D.No.5-41A,
41A, Ward No.5, Pamur
Road, Kothuru, Kanigirii Nagara Panchayat, Prakasam District,
District, the above writ
petition is filed.
Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excis
Excise
e appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 to 4.
Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the 3 rd respondent failed to
exercise the power vested with the authority judiciously. He would submit that
suspending the license pending enquiry cannot be exercised in a routine
manner. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment reported in
Tappers Cooperative Societies, Maddur vs. Superintendent of Excise,
Mahaboobnagar (1984(2) APLJ Page 1).
The learned Government Pleader would submit that suspension order
passed by the authority is pending enquiry. The petitioner breached the
conditions of license.
Section 31 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 postulates that the authority
granting license or permit may cancel or suspend irrespective of the period to
which the license or permit relates in the circumstances under (a) or (b) or (c)
or(d) or (e). The proviso would clarify that the license or permit shall be
cancelled or suspended unless the holder thereof is given an opportunity of
making his representation against the action proposed.
The said proviso is considered by Full Bench of the Court in case of
Tappers Cooperative Societies, Maddur vs. Superintendent of Excise,
Mahaboobnagar (1984(2) APLJ Page 1). In Para 42, it was observed that the
incidental or ancillary power cannot be exercised in a routine way or in the
matter of course. The licensing authority is bound to exercise the discretion
reasonably, bonafide and without negligence.
In view of the ratio laid down in the Full Bench judgment referred to
supra, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order vide
Rc.No.182/2022/B2, dated 29.04.2024 suspending the license in Form 2B of
petitioner's Bar bearing L.No.22/2022-25, D.No.5-41A, Ward No.5, Pamur
Road, Kothuru, Kanigiri Nagara Panchayat, Prakasam District, is hereby
suspended.
However, this order will not preclude the authorities from proceeding with
further enquiry as per the law.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise seeks
time to file counter-affidavit.
List the matter after Summer Vacation-2024.
________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Dated 01.05.2024
KA
