Y.CHAKARAVARTHY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kiran Tirumalasetty, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents.

(2.) In the present writ petition challenge is to the proceedings C.R.No.4902/2020/CPE/E3, dated 20-11-2020 issued by the office of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise-3rd respondent herein, vide proceedings Rc.No.324/2017/B2, dated 21-05-2020, suspended the restaurant and bar licence of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner violated Rules 41 and 43 (1) of A.P. (Grant of Licence of selling by Bar and conditions of Licence) Rules, 2017. Questioning the validity of the said order of suspension, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.10028 of 2020. This Court on 22-06-2020 suspended the said order of suspension of licence and the said writ petition is pending consideration before this Court. Taking into consideration the undertaking/affidavit given by the licensee, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise-2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 20-11-2020 compounding the departmental action initiated under Section 31(1)(b) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') while asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,84,000/- under Section 47(1) of the Act without prejudice to the criminal proceedings pending in the Court against the licensee.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned action of levying Rs.4,84,000/- towards compounding fee is highly illegal, arbitrary and not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that while passing the order of suspension, it was never the case of the respondents herein that the seals and locks were opened and the petitioner conducted business during lock down period. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that in similar circumstances, the respondents herein compounded the offences involving technical aspects by imposing compounding fee of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- only, as such, the impugned action is discriminatory and is offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.