V KUPPUSAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a licensee for run-in a retail liquor shop in Kumbakonam town. The petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent in ROC B. Spl 8330-A/82 dated 5-2-1982, in the present writ petition. That order was passed by the second respondent under Section 23 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition ACt X of 1937, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of the second respondent has set forth the irregularities found at the time of the inspection of the shop of the petitioner on 27-1-1982, by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Thanjavur, and opining that a prima facie case for violation of the provisions of the Act and certain Rules 1981, and condition No.4 of the licence, the second respondent suspended the licence of the petitioner. It has been clearly stated that suspension is pending enquiry and disposal of the charges against the petitioner.

(2.) Mr.G.Gopinatha learned counsel for the petitioner, would attack subsection (4) if Section 23 of the ACt, under which the impugned order has been passed, by stating that the said provision is violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of the India. He has not urged any other point before me. In substation of his submission, the learned counsel draws my attention to the entirety of Section 23 of the Act and would submit that under Section 23 (3) the power of suspension could be exercised only after giving an opportunity to the holder of the licence to state his objection within a reasonable time, not ordinarily exceeding 14 days and after considering such representations. In contrast, learned counsel would state Section 23 (4) while empowering the authority concerned to suspend the licence, denies an opportunity to the holder of the licence to state his objections.

(3.) To appreciate and consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it becomes necessary to extract Section 23 of the act as whole. That section reads as follows -