Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/16405/2026 of M/s Arnrutha Wines Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 22 June 2026
Citation:__________ Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 23.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010308522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE
Neutral Citation:__________
Date of reserved for orders
:
Date of pronouncement
: 23.06.2026
Date of uploading
:
APHC010308522026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 16405/2026
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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.
1. M/S ARNRUTHA WINES, REP BY ITS. PROPRIETOR, PENTIBOINA VENKATA APPARAO, S/O PENTIBOINA APPARAO HAVING SHOP AT SY. NQ.159-10-A, PANDRANGI VILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, BHEEMUNIAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.
2. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, AT VIJ AYAWADA.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE INSPECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing show cause notice in Rc.No.138/2025/A1, dated 09-06-2026 to the Petitioner proposing to suspend the licence of the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, vague and ambiguous and set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent not to interfere with the business of the Petitioner and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the show cause notice in Rc.No.13 8/2025/A 1, dated 09-06-2026 issued by the 3rd Respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued by the 3rd Respondent in Rc.No.138/2025/A1, dated 09-06-2026 pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PRABHAKAR PERI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following order:
Questioning the show cause notice vide Rc.No.138/2025/A1 dated 09.06.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nagaraju Pullagura, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise Department.
3. After arguing at length that a writ petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice within two weeks and further requested for two weeks time to avail alternative remedy if any adverse orders are passed on the submitted explanation.
4. The Apex court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 1 has held that ordinarily no writ lies against a show cause notice. The reason is that a mere show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order affecting the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show- cause notice. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a show cause notice, if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.
1 (2006) 12 SCC 28
5. In view of the reasons stated supra, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, at the admission stage with the following direction.
(a) The petitioner is at liberty to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 09.06.2026 within two weeks from today.
(b) On receipt of the same, the authority concerned shall dispose of the same in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of hearing if required and communicate the same to the petitioner.
(c) If any adverse orders are passed on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall give two (02) weeks time to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy (if available), as per law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 23.06.2026 BRS
Whether the order is: Speaking
Reasoned
Reportable
Non-reportable