SUNIL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner, in this instant Writ Petition, assails the order passed by the 1st respondent in Cr.No. D2/2830/97/P&Ex. dated 4-7-1997 keeping the licence of IML Shop, Langer House No. 1 under suspension pending further enquiry. The said impugned order is obviously passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of the power conferred under Section 31 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The licence is kept under suspension mainly on the ground that one D. Ramesh was found selling I.M.L. and beer at an open place opposite to the licenced shop and during interrogation of the said person, he is stated to have revealed that he got the stock from Langer House No. 1 with the consent of the licensee to sell on a dry day i.e., 1-7-1997. The enquiry further revealed that the liquor seized on 1-7-1997 from the possession of the said D. Ramesh was actually supplied to the petitioner's wine shop on 4-6-1997 and 25-6-1997 by the Andhra Pradesh Beverage Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, to be sold by the petitioner through the said wine shop for which licence has already been granted. The respondent herein came to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the licence and Rule 19 of I.L. & F.L. Retail Sale Conditions of Licence Rules, 1993 and also Rule 12 of the said Rules. Having regard to all such facts and circumstances, the licence of the shop-Langer House No. 1 was kept under suspension.

(2.) The impugned order is mainly attacked by the petitioner stating that the confessional statement made by the said D. Ramesh could not have been taken into consideration by the respondent for passing the impugned suspension order. The petitioner is no way connected with the said D. Ramesh as he is neither a partner in the petitioner's business nor any nowkarnama nor any authorisation is executed in his favour by the petitioner. It is urged that the petitioner is entitled to sell the stock to any person on payment' of money and the licensee has no business or right to question any purchase as to what purpose the purchaser is buying the liquor from the shop. It is the case of the petitioner that the said D. Ramesh may have purchased the said liquor from the petitioner's wine shop and may have sold it by himself on dry day. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. The sale, admittedly, was not conducted in the licenced premises on any dry day. For all the aforesaid reasons, according to the petitioner, the respondent could not Have passed the impugned order suspending the licence of the petitioner. It is further urged that the licence of the petitioner could not have been suspended without issuing a prior notice and an opportunity of hearing.

(3.) The contentions and issues raised in the Writ Petition are to be appreciated by keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the nature of trade or business in any intoxicating liquors. It is settled law that no citizen of this country has any fundamental right to trade in intoxicating liquors. The trade or business in liquor can be completely prohibited. Dealing in intoxicating liquors is considered to be res extra commercium because of its vicious and pernicious nature. Therefore, the manner and extent of regulation of trade and business of manufacture, production, consumption and sale rest in the discretion of the governing authority. The licensee has to conduct his business and trade subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the statute, rules and the licencing conditions. The licensee has no other right or privilege except that is specifically granted to him by the authority. This legal position has to be borne in mind by this Court in considering the validity of any order passed by the competent authority in purported exercise of power conferred by the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and the Rules made thereunder,