MADLKONDA SRLNLVASA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions, inter alia, question the vires of Rule 53(4) of A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 and also for a declaration that the proceedings dated 16-8-1999,14-8-1999 and 14-8-1999 respectively issued by the Excise Superintendent, West Godavari District, Eluru suspending their licences issued for retail sale of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor and Beer as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and the rules framed thereunder.

(2.) Though W.P.No.18385 of 1999 and W.P.Nos. 19464 and 20175 of 1999 were heard separately since all the writ petitions challenge the vires of Rule 53(4) of the aforementioned Rules, they were being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows: The petitioner in W.P.No.18385 of 1999 was initially issued a licence for the year 1998-99 for retail sale of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Beer and he was running the said business in the name and style of M/s. Sri Rama Wines, Kavvagunta, West Godavari District. The said licence was renewed for the year 1999-2000. The enforcement wing of Vijayawada conducted a raid at house bearing D.No.2/113 in Kavvagunta village on 31-5-1999 at about 10 p.m. and seized 11 Nip bottles of non-duty paid Kerala Malt Whisky and a nowkarnama No.103/98-99 dated 2-5-1998 was also seized from the scene of offence. The said nowkarnama belongs to one Godugu Banerjee Ramakrishnarao who had been appointed by the petitioner for the year 1998-99 as his servant. A case in Crime No.47/99-2000 under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act was registered against the said Ramakrishna Rao. Thereafter, it is alleged that as per the directions of Asst. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Enforcement Wing, Vijayawada dated 12-6-1999, the petitioner was also implicated in the crime and his name shown as A-2 in the aforementioned Criminal case. The said Ramakrishnarao was appointed as nowkarnama for the year 1998-99 only and for the year 1999-2000 one M. Venkateswara Rao was appointed as nowkarnama. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 16-8-1999 suspending the licence of the petitioner pending enquiry under Rule 30 of A.P. Excise (Indian and Foreign Liquor Retail Sale Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1993 (for short 'the Rules') alleging that Ramakrishna Rao who voluntarily surrendered before the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Eluru had confessed that he was selling non-duty paid liquor at the time the raid was conducted and that he also alleged to have confessed that the petitioner was indulging in the sale of non-duty paid liquor which is prohibited under Rule 16(1) of the Rules. According to the petitioner, Ramakrishnarao was not the nowkarnama for the year 1999-2000 and, therefore, he cannot be made liable for the acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the said Ramakrishnarao. Even otherwise also, the petitioner cannot be vicariously liable for the acts of the nowkarnama as the petitioner had not expressly or impliedly authorized the nowkarnama to do such illegal acts.