Disposed

M/S.Sundeep Restaurant and Bar v. Prohandexcise,Nellore

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Apr 2024WP/18204/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand notice as an arbitrary order issued without hearing. The bench held that despite the title 'notice,' the content directed payment and threatened action, constituting an order. The court quashed it for violating natural justice and directed the authority to issue a show cause notice instead.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings treated as a show cause notice; petitioner directed to submit explanation within four weeks; writ petition disposed.

M/S.Sundeep Restaurant and Bar Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) .

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 18204 OF 2013 /•

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/S.Sundeep Restaurant & BAR, A.T.Agraharam, Nellore rep. by its License Holder Sirasanambedu Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Pitch! Reddy, R/o. Flat No.203, Cresent Manor Apartment, Santhinagar, Nellore.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Prohib & Excise, Nellore, Nellore, Rep. by its Superintendent .

¶11

...RESPONDENTS /

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the demand notice in R.C.No.393/2006/A 4, dated 17.06.2013, calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 13,14,292/- as arbitrary illegal, unjust. Colourable exercise of power, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and the A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of

¶13

•it

¶14

relevant facts in License) Rules. 2005, non-application of mind to the proper perspective, apart from violative of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of India and under Articles 14 and 19 guaranteed and direct the respondent to renew the consequently set aside the same license and permit the petitioner to continue its business.

¶15

I A NO: 1 OF 9ni5fWVMP 4007 OF 2015)

¶16

Prohib & Excise

¶17

Nellore, Nellore, Rep. by its Superintendent.

¶18

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶19

AND

¶20

BAR, A.T.Agraharam, Nellore, rep. by its

¶21

1. M/S.Sundeep Restaurant & Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Pitchi

¶22

License Holder Sirasanambedu Reddy, R/o. Flat No.203, Cresent Manor Apartment, Santhinagar Nellore, Nellore District.

¶23

respondent/petitioner

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances support of the petition, the High Court may be stated in the affidavit filed in dt;26.06.2013 passed in W.P.M.P. No. pleased to vacate the interim order 22198/2013 in W.P.No.18204/2013 and dismiss the writ^petition DF 2Q13(WPMP. NO: 22198 OF 20131 I.A. NO: 1

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances support of the petition, the High Court may be stated in the affidavit filed in .NO.393/2006/A4, dated 17.06.2013 pleased to suspend the notice in R.C issued by the respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. C V R RUDRA PRASAD

¶27

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE (AP)

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.18204 OF 2013

¶33

M/s. Sundeep Restaurant and Bar, A.T. Agraharam, Nellore, rep. by its License Holder Sirasanambedu Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.Pitchi Reddy, R/o. Flat No.203, Cresent Manor Apartment, Santhinagar, Nellore.

¶34

... Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

The Prohibition and Excise Department, Nellore, rep. by its Superintendent.

¶37

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.V. R. Rudra Prasad Counsel for respondent ; GP for Prohibition and Excise

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The above writ petition is filed assailing the notice in R.C.NO.393/2006/A4, dated 17.06.2013, whereby the authority called upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 13,14,292/- within seven⁽⁰⁷⁾ days.

¶40

On 26.06.2013, interim order was granted in '' W.P.M.P.No.22198 of 2013 and the same is continued till today.

¶41

Page 2 of 7

¶42

SRS, J WP.No.18204/2013

¶43

Heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for respondent.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though the impugned proceedings styled as notice, however, it is an order. Such an order was issued without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶45

The respondent filed counter-affidavit, wherein it was contended, inter alia, that, the Station House Officer, Nellore-I inspected the Bar premises on 29.08.2012 and found that, the licensed premises are contiguous with single entry^{andoneservice} exit. It was further stated that, the petitioner is liable to pay additional enclosure fee @ 10% of the annual license fee since the petitioner was permitted to alter the premises by the order of the then Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in Rc.No.81/2009/A4,^dated 31.08.2012. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶46

The point for consideration is:

¶47

‘Whether the proceedings impugned in the writ petition is notice or order?

¶48

Page 3 of 6

¶49

SRS, J WP.No.18204/2013

¶50

As seen from the impugned proceedings, it was styled as notice, however, on a careful perusal contents, it^{isanorderdirecting} the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.13,14,292/- within^seven(07) days from the date of receipt of the notice and submit^{originalchallan} in the office of Prohibition and Excise Superintendent,^{Nellore,failing} which, action will be initiated against the petitioner.

¶51

As stated supra, the notice impugned was issued directing^the petitioner to pay additional enclosure fee @ 10% of^the annual license fee since the petitioner did not maintain rooms^contiguously as required. It is pertinent to mention here that before^directingthe petitioner to deposit the amount, no show cause notice^wasissuedto the petitioner. As discussed supra, though the impugned^proceeding is styled as notice, the contents would manifest that^{thepetitioner}

¶52

was directed to pay the amount within seven days and submit original challan. Whether the petitioner is maintaining rooms contiguously or not, was not enquired before issuing notice. The basis to issue notice is undertaking affidavit. The alleged undertaking affidavit of the petitioner, per se, could not have^{beenthebasis.The} authority should have issued show cause notice.

¶53

¶54

Page 4 of 6

¶55

SRS, J WP.No.18204/2013

¶56

Since no show cause notice was issued and opportunity^isnot provided to explain the case of the petitioner, such an act of the respondent suffers from violative of principles of natural justice.

¶57

In Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhatl and others'', the Supreme Court discussed about the importance of opportunity of hearing. It was observed as follows:

¶58

“The principles of natural justice developed over a period of time and which are still in vogue and valid even today were: (i) rule against bias i.e. nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa; and (ii) opportunity of being heard to the party concerned i.e. audi alteram partem. These^are known as principles of natural justice. To these principles a third principle is added, which is of recent origin. It is the duty to give reasons in support of decision, namely, passing of a "reasoned order".

¶59

Though the aforesaid principles of natural justice^are known^to have^their origin in Common Law, even in India the principle is prevalent from ancient times, which was even invoked in Kautilya's^Arthasastra.

¶60

It, thus, cannot be denied that the principles of natural justice are grounded in procedural fairness which ensures taking^{ofcorrectdecisions} and procedural fairness is fundamentally an instrumental good. In the sense that procedure should be designed to ensure accurate or appropriate outcomes. In fact, procedural fairness is valuable in both the instrumental and non- instrumental terms.

¶61

!»■

¶62

It is on the aforesaid jurisprudential premise that the fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, have developed. It is for this reason that the courts have consistently insisted that such procedural fairness has to be adhered to before a decision is made and infraction thereof has led to the quashing^{ofdecisionstaken.In} many statutes, provisions are made ensuring that a notice is given to a person against whom an order is likely to be passed before a decision is made, but there may be instances where though an authority^isvested with the powers to pass orders which have civil consequences, affecting the liberty or property of an individual but the statute may not contain a

¶63

(2015) 8 see 519

¶64

Page 5 of 6

¶65

SRS, J WP.No.18204/2013

¶66

provision for prior hearing. But what is important^{tobenotedisthatthe} applicabiiity of principies of natural justice is not dependent upon any statutory provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any such statutory provision or not. The opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision is considered to be a basic requirement in the court proceeding. Later on, this principle has been applied to other quasi-judicial^{authoritiesandother} tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in the administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary. If the purpose of rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how these rules should not be made available to administrative inquiries. ”

¶67

Case at hand, as discussed supra, though the heading^ofthe proceedings is shown as notice, however, the contents would manifest that it is order. 12. In view of the discussion supra, the proceedings impugned should be treated as show cause notice. The petitioner^shallsubmit explanation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On receipt of the explanation, the respondent authority shall consider the same objectively, if necessary, by affording opportunity and pass a reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶68

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed^of.No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶69

¶70

Proh & Excise, Nellore, Nellore, Rep. by its Superintendent.

¶71

One CC to SRI C V R RUDRA PRASAD Advocat^ [OPUC]

¶72

Two CCS to GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE (AP), High^Courtof Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶73

Two C D Copies

MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 26/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.18204 of 2013

Or
tA3
i O \r
® 5 m ?o?4 Hi;
Ca/rr.'
n
'V-’r' r'-’/

¶82

DISPOSING THE W.P

¶83

WITHOUT COSTS

M/S.Sundeep Restaurant and Bar v. Prohandexcise,Nellore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sundeep Restaurant and Bar v. Prohandexcise,Nellore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muppidi Mangamma Vs the State of Ap

Konchada Appalaraju Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Bathula Kalyani Vs the State of Ap

K Meenakshi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Hindustan Engineers Syndicate Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

Sunkara Kamalavathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh