LAWS(APH)-2008-4-55

J VISWANATHA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

Decided On April 10, 2008
J. VISWANATHA REDDY Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, whose Form A-4 licence issued under the provisions of the a. P. Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules') to sell liquor in retail was cancelled, filed this writ petition seeking invalidation of the orders passed by the hierarchical authorities by issue of a writ of Certiorari.

(2.) THE facts crisply stated are as under: the petitioner was the successful bidder for running a retail liquor shop at Vellatur, Pendimarri Mandal, Kadapa District. He was granted licence bearing no. 117/2006-08 in Form A-4 under the Rules for a period of two years from 01. 07. 2006 to 30. 06. 2008. On 26. 01. 2007, respondent No. 5 along with his staff conducted a search and found 77 cartons of spurious liquor bottles of Bagpiper whisky, with each of the 3693 bottles containing 180 ml. Consequently, respondent No. 5 registered a criminal case bearing crime No. 162 of 2006-07 on his file for offence under Section 34-A of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act' ).

(3.) WHILE the said criminal case was pending, respondent No. 4 issued proceedings vide Rc. No. B3/32/2007 dated 27. 01. 2007 by which the petitioner's licence was suspended and simultaneously he issued a show cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner against the proposed cancellation of his licence. Respondent No. 4, after considering the explanation filed by the petitioner on 06. 02. 2007, issued proceedings in Rc. No. B2/704/2006 dated 23. 02. 2007, whereby he cancelled the licence granted in favour of the petitioner. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of cancellation ended in its dismissal by proceedings Rc. No. B/60/2007 dated 01. 03. 2007 of respondent No. 3 and the second appeal filed by the petitioner met the same fate with its dismissal by respondent No. 2 by order dated 07. 05. 2007. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before respondent No. 1, which dismissed the same by affirming the orders passed by the original and appellate authorities vide G. O. Rt. No. 531 dated 20. 02. 2008.