Allowed

Maruthi Wines v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Feb 2018WP/5620/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the suspension of an A4 shop license. The Court held that the suspension, treated as a penal action under Section 31 of the A.P. Excise Act, was illegal as it was passed without a show cause notice. The impugned order was set aside, and respondents were directed to issue a show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of license suspension set aside; respondents directed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner.

Maruthi Wines Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5620 of 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶5

of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“……to issue an order or orders or direction or a writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.4 in suspending the license of the petitioner’s A4 shop in Licence No.67/2017-19/GDR vide proceeding Rc.No.165/2017/A6 dated 12.02.2018 is illegal, artbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents and perused the prayer in the writ petition with supporting affidavit, impugned proceedings of the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, dated 12.02.2018, and the other material on record.

¶8

The lis in this writ petition is covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.1359 of 2018 and batch. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that it is, as a penal action under Section 31 of the A.P.Excise Act (for short ‘the Act’), the orders are passed as a deemed final order and not even mentioned as suspension pending enquiry even in the public interest and by mentioning that there is an appeal remedy. Once that is the order, which is, without affording

¶9

¶10

opportunity to the petitioner by show cause notice, the same is not sustainable, as observed thereunder.

¶11

Having regard to the above, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the respondents are at liberty to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. However, this order does not come in the way of fresh or further

¶12

proceedings to be initiated by the respondents.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

¶14

costs.

¶15

____________________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
21 st February 2018
mar

Maruthi Wines v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthi Wines v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Malyadri Naidu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Tummala Venkateswara Rao Vs The state Of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Vogulapu Laxmi Narsu Vs The State of Telangana

Y. Sambasiva Rao Vs State of Ap

P Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Ap

B. Ravi Kumar Vs State of Telangana