SRIDEVI WINES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. She filed a writ petition inter alia questioning the notices dated 25-7-2000 and 5-8-2000 issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad-1st respondent and the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nalgonda-2nd respondent respectively. By reason of the first notice dated 25-7-2000 it was directed:

(2.) By reason of the second notice dated 5-8-2000 it was directed:

(3.) It is not in dispute that before the 1st respondent arrived at a finding of fact to the effect that the appellant herein had been carrying on business at a place to which she is not entitled to, she had not been given an opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nalgonda 2nd respondent herein has merely complied with the direction of the 1st respondent, although he is the licensing authority.