VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) BOTH sides agreed that the writ petition itself might be heard and disposed of. Heard both sides. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a licencee under the a. P. Excise (Indian Liquor and Foreign liquor Retail Sale Conditions of Licences) rules, 1993 (for short the Rules ). He is carrying on the business of sale of liquor in certain premises in Kaikaluru village in krishna District. The licence for the purpose was granted for the year 1998-99. While so, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise is said to have inspected the premises of the licencee and found that the shop where the business in liquor was - carried on by the petitioner was within 100 metres from some Church and thus there was contravention of Rule 6 of the Rules. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner communicated his observation to the above effect to the Superintendent of Excise who is the licensing authority. On that basis the superintendent of Excise issued notice to the licencee to show-cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled the licencee submitted his explanation on 23-3-1999 denying the allegation that there was any contravention of Rule 6 of the Rules. It was further specifically asserted in the explanation submitted by the petitioner that his shop was situated beyond 100 metres from the Church in question and the measurement of the Deputy Commissioner that it was at a distance of 95 metres was not correct. The Superintendent of Excise did not accept the explanation given by the licencee and passed orders on 27-3-1999 cancelling the licence of the petitioner herein. The petitioner approached the commissioner by way of an appeal under section 63 of the A. P. Excise Act. The commissioner of Excise by his orders dt. 3-4-1999 dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner has personally verified the distance between the petitioner s premises and the nearby Church and found the distance to be 95 metres from the nearest point which amounts to contravention of Rule 6 of the rules. It is this order which is now being challenged in this writ petition. It is this order which is now being challenged in this writ petition. ( 3 ) SRI Sairam Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly contends that when the petitioner in his explanation specifically averred that the distance between the wine shop and the Church in question was more than 100 meters and the distance arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner was not correct, the licensing authority should have enquired about it and given an opportunity to the petitioner to show by way of remeasurement that the distance arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner was not correct. It is secondly contended that even assuming that the distance between the shop and the Church was 100 metres or so the licensing authority ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to shift the premises of the wine shop to another premises to ensure that there was no violation of R. 6. ( 4 ) THE learned Assistant Government pleader for Excise on the other hand contends that the R. 6 does not contemplate that the measurement of distance between the licenced premises and any of the institutions as mentioned in the rule has to be done in the presence of the licencee or his representative. It is also contended that once there is violation of the relevant rule there is no obligation on the part of the licensing authority to give any opportunity to the licencee to shift the shop to another premises to ensure that there was no violation. ( 5 ) IT is pertinent to mention here that there was no notice or information to the petitioner when the Deputy Commissioner proposed to ascertain the distance between the petitioner s wine shop and the Church. In response to the show-cause notice the petitioner specifically pleaded before the licensing authority the Superintendent of excise that the measurement arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner was incorrect and that the premises in question were situated more than 100 metres from the church. Even at this stage also the licensing authority did not think it proper to take a second measurement after notice to the petitioner or in the presence of the petitioner. These circumstances go to show that the rudimentary principles of natural justice have not been complied with. Even at this stage also the licensing authority did not think it proper to take a second measurement after notice to the petitioner or in the presence of the petitioner. These circumstances go to show that the rudimentary principles of natural justice have not been complied with. When the licence is sought to be cancelled on the ground of violation of Rule 6 of the said rules the petitioner ought to have been given sufficient opportunity to show that the communication sent to the licensing authority by the Deputy Commissioner as to the distance was not correct. The most convenient method for resolving this question would have been to undertake the measurement by some officer designated by the licensing authority after notice to the petitioner and in the presence of the petitioner or his representative. This having not been done the cancellation of licence solely on this ground appears to be arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 6 ) FURTHER there is some force in the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even if there is a marginal violation of the Rule 6 and if the wine shop is assumed to be situated around 100 metres from the Church the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to shift his premises to a distance which does not violate Rule 6 of the Rules. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING these circumstances there can be no hesitation in holding that the cancellation of licence by the licensing authority and confirmation of the same by the appellate authority have to be set aside. ( 8 ) THE learned Assistant Government pleader for Excise, however, contends that inasmuch as the period of licence which has been cancelled has expired nothing remains to be done even if the impugned orders are held to be invalid. I am unable to agree with this contention. It may be mentioned that had the licence of the petitioner not been cancelled on the ground of violation of Rule 6 of the Rules he would have been entitled to renew his licence in the normal course. I am unable to agree with this contention. It may be mentioned that had the licence of the petitioner not been cancelled on the ground of violation of Rule 6 of the Rules he would have been entitled to renew his licence in the normal course. In fact it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has made an application for renewing his licence for the subsequent period of 1999-2000 and for the current period of 2000-2001 but the licensing authority has not passed any orders on this application. Obviously, the basis for failure on the part of the licensing authority to renew the petitioner s licence is the alleged violation of Rule 6 of the Rules during the licensing period 1998-99. ( 9 ) IN view of the above findings the respondent No. 3 the Excise Superintendent shall consider the petitioner s application for renewal of licence for the year 2000-2001 without taking into account the alleged violation of licence by the petitioner during the licence period of 1998-99. ( 10 ) WRIT petition is accordingly allowed with these directions. No costs.