G. KISTAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was granted a licence in Form 2B for running a bar and restaurant, challenges the orders passed by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, through his proceedings dated 22.10.2013, cancelling the said licence with immediate effect. For passing this order, the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Narasaraopet has invoked the power available under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

(2.) HEARD Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, who has accepted notice on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 herein and suggested that issuance of notice to these respondents can be waived in view of the legal question involved for determination in this case. Accordingly, issuance of notices to Respondents 1 to 4 is dispensed with.

(3.) THEREFORE , it is the Deputy Commissioner of the Excise Division who is the competent authority to grant the licence/privilege to run a bar in Form 2B but not the Excise Superintendent. Rule 11 of these Rules made the position further clear by declaring that the Deputy Commissioner shall be the competent authority to grant the privilege to run a bar. Hence, it is more than clear that the competent authority for invoking the power to cancel or suspend a licence granted in Form 2B in terms of sub -section (1) of Section 31 of the Act is the Deputy Commissioner of the Excise Division but not the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent. Therefore, the order passed by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Narasaraopet in this case is without any power or jurisdiction. It is rather hard for me to believe that a Prohibition & Excise Superintendent could not have known, by now, that he lacks the competence to grant a licence in Form 2B. An uncomfortable feeling is always left behind in cases of this nature in the minds of the Courts that a patently illegal order is passed only with a view to extend the necessary help to the defaulter, so that a good legal ground exists for securing necessary relief from the Court. Therefore, the conduct of the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Narasaraopet in passing a patently illegal order deserves to be examined as to how far he is justified and as to whether he acted bona fide in the matter and that is for the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise to take care, being the Head of the Department. It is time that the authorities who passed patently illegal orders are held accountable and pulled up and necessary discipline is administered, so that the purposeful and deliberate orders of this nature would not get repeatedly passed.