Telangana High Court
WP/26808/2006 of Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, Mallapur village Vs The Government of Andhra pradesh, rep.by its on 26 December 2006
Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 26808 of 2006 Dated: 26-12-2006 Between: Toddy Tappers co-operative Society, Mallapur. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 26808 of 2006 O R D E R: This
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO: 26808 of 2006
Dated: 26-12-2006
Between:Toddy Tappers co-operative Society,Mallapur.
ANDThe Government of AndhraPradesh and others.
..... PETITIONER
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO: 26808 of 2006
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.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the second respondent,dated 04-11-2006, suspending the licence of the petitioner pending enquiry.
The impugned order is questioned primarily on the ground that sinceadmittedly there was no prior notice to the petitioner, the same is contrary to theproviso to Section 31(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’),apart from being violative of principles of natural justice.
It is to be noted that the suspension provided under Section 31(1) of the Act isa final order by way of punishment but not suspension as an interim measurepending enquiry. The law is well settled that where licence is suspended pendingenquiry, prior notice is not mandatory. Under the impugned order apparently thepetitioner’s licence is suspended pending enquiry.
Hence, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the order is bad for want of prior notice.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondents aredirected to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within aperiod of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording dueopportunity to the petitioner to put forth its version. No costs.
______________
G. ROHINI, J
Dated: 26-12-2006
Note: Issue C.C. in three days.