WP/23431/2004 of R.Beerappa Vs ProhibitionANDExcise Department on 27 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 23431 of 2004

Between:

R.Beerappa S/o.Ramaiah

II.No.13-19, Jogipet Village, Andole Mandal, Medak Dist.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

2 The Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise Department, Medak Dist.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of"Certiorari" calling for the records relating to Cr.No.B7/553/2004 dt 2-12-2004issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjustand unconstitutional and contrary to the factual position and population of theAlladurg village in the interest of justice and pas such other order or orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

Petitioner feels aggrieved by the demand notice dated 02.12.2004 issued by thesecond respondent. The petitioner is a licencee in form No. IL 24. The matterrelates to payment of the differential amount of licence fee based on thepopulation in the area.

On an earlier occasion, the petitioner was issued a demand notice on29.03.2004 for payment of the differential amount. Aggrieved thereby, he filedW.P.No.7640 of 2004. The demand notice was set aside on the ground thatthere was no formal determination of the matter. It was left open to the secondrespondent to issue notice. For the second time, a demand notice was issuedon 12.08.2004. The petitioner filed W.P.No.15307 of 2004. The writ petition wasallowed on the sole ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity. Itwas presumably in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court inW.P.No.15307 of 2004 that the impugned notice was issued.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forProhibition & Excise.

A bare perusal of the impugned notice discloses that the petitioner was notgiven an opportunity to explain and straight away the amount referred to thereinwas directed to be paid. On the face of it, the impugned notice is incontravention with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.15307 of 2004.When this was pointed out, the second respondent has promptly taken action in withdrawing the impugned notice through memo dated 24.12.2004. It wasfollowed by a notice of the same day whereunder the petitioner was required toexplain as to why the difference of licence fee for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 together with interest at the rate of 18% shall not be collected from him. Thebackground facts are narrated in the notice.

Inasmuch as the notice challenged in the writ petition was withdrawn by thesecond respondent, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. Thepetitioner was issued a fresh notice dated 24.12.2004 to explain within twoweeks as to why the amount referred to therein shall not be collected from him.It shall be open to the petitioner to submit the explanation and the secondrespondent, in turn, shall consider the same before passing any orders.

Arguments

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain documents are referredto in the show cause notice and the copies of the same may be directed to befurnished. It shall be open to the petitioner to make a representation to thesecond respondent for furnishing such documents as are referred to in theshow cause notice and on receiving such an application, the secondrespondent shall furnish the copies of the same. The petitioner shall be givenone week time from the date of furnishing of such documents, to submit hisexplanation.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

----------------------

27.12.2004

ksld

1 The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

2 The Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise Department, Medak Dist.

3 Two CCs.to the G.P.for Prohibition & Excise, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

4 Two CD copies.