GOKA BUJJAMMA Vs. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. The writ petition was filed by the appellant for declaration that the proceedings dated 10-1-2002 issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Srikakulam in suspending the licence of the appellant's wine shop and as confirmed by the second respondent in proceedings dated 8-2-2002 as illegal and for a consequential direction to the first respondent for restoration of the licence of the appellant. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by observing as follows:

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order impugned in the writ petition is ex facie illegal and that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to suspend the licence without affording an opportunity to the appellant/petitioner.

(3.) We have perused the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal are only general in nature and no specific reference has been made with reference to the proviso to Section 31 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short "the Act"), which says that no licence or permit shall be cancelled or suspended unless the holder thereof is given an opportunity of making his representation against the action proposed. In the order impugned, show cause notice was issued to the appellant under Section 31 (1)(b) of the Act for cancellation of the licence under the said proviso and pending the said proceedings the licence issued to the appellant had been suspended, which, in our opinion, is against the proviso to the said section. Since an opportunity was not given, the licence cannot be suspended. A Division Bench of this Court comprising of Chief Justice and V.V.S. Rao, J., in the judgment reported in K. Srinivasa Reddy v. Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise in an identical matter held as follows: