Telangana High Court
WP/25271/2006 of K. Narender Goud, Vs The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, on 28 December 2006
Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 25271 of 2006 Dated: 28-12-2006 Between: K.Narender Goud ..... PETITIONER AND The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 25271 of 2006 O R D
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO: 25271 of 2006
Between:K.Narender GoudAND
Dated: 28-12-2006
..... PETITIONER
The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent,Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District and 2 others.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO: 25271 of 2006
The petitioner was granted T.C.S. licence on 16-04-2003 valid up to 30-09-2007. Byorder, dated 16-10-2006, passed by the first respondent in exercise of powers underSection 31(1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, the petitioner’s licencewas cancelled on the allegation that the petitioner had indulged in adulteration oftoddy. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was alsodismissed by the 3[rd] respondent by order dated 27-11-2006. Hence, this writpetition.
Though various grounds have been raised on merits contending that the findingsrecorded by both the respondents 1 and 3 are untenable, it is primarily contended by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity by the 3[rd] respondentbefore dismissing the appeal.
It is to be noted that the appeal was preferred on 09-11-2006 and the same wasdismissed by order dated 27-11-2006 on the basis of the records produced by theProhibition and Excise Superintendent, Gadwal.
The specific plea raised by the petitioner that no opportunity was given to thepetitioner was not denied by the respondents. As a matter of fact, under instructions,the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submitted that the saidorder was passed without hearing the petitioner.
Under Section 7(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Appeal and Revision)Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’), before an appeal is rejected, the appellateauthority shall assign the reasons and the petitioner shall be given an opportunity ofmaking his representation in that behalf. Rule 9 of the Rules also provides thatwhere the appeal is not summarily rejected on the grounds mentioned in sub-rule (1)of Rule 7, the appellate authority has to fix a date for personal hearing of the case if itconsiders necessary so to do. Since no such procedure was followed andadmittedly the petitioner was not given an opportunity before deciding the appeal, onthat ground alone, the order of the 3[rd] respondent is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the order, dated 16-10-2006, is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3[rd]respondent to consider the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders afresh inaccordance with law. No costs.
______________
G. ROHINI, J
Dated: 28-12-2006
KLP