R.MALLESH GOUD Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the Notice issued vide CR.No.E3/914/2018 dated 05.01.2019 whereby his license to run toddy business was suspended, pending enquiry, on the ground that he is selling adulterated toddy.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, on instructions, would assert that a case was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the petitioner was absconding, apparently trying to obtain anticipatory bail, he 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 529 1994 SCC OnLine AP 287 : (1995) 1 ALD 164 2004 SCC OnLine AP 537 : (2004) 4 ALD 681 was wilfully unavailable for serving notice on him. The learned Government Pleader further asserts that though the petitioner received the notice on 04.04.2019, he has not approached the 4th respondent and offered his explanation. He also asserts that the impugned order is only a suspension, during pendency of enquiry for his involvement in a large scale sale of toddy by adulterating it with 'Alprazolam' which is injurious to health. The learned Government Pleader, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in G.Bheemaiah v. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Mahaboobnagar4 submits that suspension pending enquiry need not necessarily be preceded by a notice and in a given case, suspension can be effected, pending enquiry, depending on the facts of the case and the magnitude of likelihood of injury to public. He, however, submits that the petitioner would be at liberty to submit his explanation and the same would be considered and necessary orders would be passed by the competent authority.

(3.) Having considered the respective submissions, this Court is satisfied that suspension pending enquiry need not be preceded by a notice or an opportunity of being heard. A careful perusal of the judgment of the learned single Judge in M/s Sree Devi Wines (2 supra), wherein reference has been made to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Tappers Co- operative Society, Maddur v. Superintendent of Excise, Mahaboobnagar5, would show that it does not lay down, as a proposition, that no suspension pending enquiry can be resorted to without issuance of prior notice. On the contrary, the judgment would lend support to the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that, in a given case, an order of suspension, pending enquiry, can always be made without notice depending on the injury that is to be prevented.