R.VENAKTESWARULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by two different petitioners by names R. Venkateswarlu and P. Vasanth Reddy, questioning the orders of suspension of 2B License issued by the third respondent/The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Ananthapuram in Rc.No.391/2019/C1 dated 27.01.2020, challenged in these two writ petitions on identical grounds and therefore, I find it expedient to decide both these writ petitions by common order.

(2.) Since, the question involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, W.P.No.2259 of 2020 is taken as leading case.

(3.) The petitioner obtained Form-2B License to run Bar & Restaurant under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Grant of Licensee of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2017 (for short The Rules, 2017 ). Ever since the date of grant of license, the petitioner was conducting business in the name and style of Chandu Restaurant and Bar at Kadiri without contravening any of the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short The Act ) and the Rules, 2017 framed therein. While the matter stood thus, the third respondent herein issued a show cause notice on 21.12.2019 alleging that the fourth respondent/Prohibition & Excise Superintendent submitted a report stating that the Station House Officer, Kadiri submitted a report stating that on 14.10.2019 at about 11:45 p.m (23:45 hrs), the Station House Officer, Kadiri along with staff conducted surprise inspection of the bar premises and collected two loose liquor bottles and checked the strength of the liquor and it was found to be 26.4% and 25.4 up. The bottles were sent for chemical examination and the chemical analysis report shown as 26.0 and 26.7 and found that the liquor was diluted. Basing on the said report, the fourth respondent opined that the petitioner has willfully violated the provisions of Section 36(1)(b) & (c) of the Act r/w Rules 27, 33 and 37 of the Rules, 2017 and the third respondent directed the petitioner to submit explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice. As the offence alleged against the petitioner is purely technical in nature, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation within stipulated time and wanted to submit the explanation in the last week of the month and the same was not accepted on the ground that the period prescribed is already over.