S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is the appellant herein. She filed a writ petition inter alia questioning the notices dated 25-7-2000 and 5-8-2000 issued by the Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad-1st respondent and the Prohibition and Excise superintendent, Nalgonda-2nd respondent respectively. By reason of the first notice dated 25-7-2000 it was directed:"the attention of the Proh. and Excise superintendent, Nalgonda is invited to the reference cited. He is directed to issue notice to licensee to shift the shop to a place located within the limits of Thipparthy (Revenue) mandal and take action accordingly". ( 2 ) BY reason of the second notice dated 5-8-2000 it was directed:"the Commissioner of Proh. and excise, A. P. , Hyderabad vide reference 2nd cited has directed to shift the said shop in the Revenue limits of thipparthy Mandal. Therefore smt. Sridevi, licensee of M/s. Sridevi wines-IL 24 at Ramnagar is directed to select the new premises within the limits of Thipparthy Revenue Mandal for shifting of the IL 24 shop immediately". ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that before the 1st respondent arrived at a finding of fact to the effect that the appellant herein had been carrying on business at a place to which she is not entitled to, she had not been given an opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, nalgonda 2nd respondent herein has merely complied with the direction of the 1st respondent, although he is the licensing authority. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant rightly submits that had an opportunity been given to his client, she could have shown that the entire proceeding has proceeded on a misconception as to whether the appellant was to run her shop within a Panchayat Mandal or within the Revenue Mandal. ( 5 ) IT was further submitted by the learned Counsel that had such an opportunity been granted, she could have further shown that in terms of the advertisement also, she was not asked to run her shop only within the Panchayat Mandal. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter, as civil consequences have ensued, in our opinion, the appellant should have been granted an opportunity of hearing, as agreed to by the learned Government Pleader for prohibition and Excise. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter, as civil consequences have ensued, in our opinion, the appellant should have been granted an opportunity of hearing, as agreed to by the learned Government Pleader for prohibition and Excise. Such an opportunity of hearing may now be given by the prohibition and Excise Superintendent, nalgonda 2nd respondent herein. The appellant herein shall file her explanation within one week from date. Thereafter, the said authority may fix a date of hearing and an appropriate order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, as also the 3rd respondent, may be passed upon assigning sufficient and cogent reasons thereof at an early date and not later than two (02) weeks from the date of filing of the explanation. ( 7 ) THE writ appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. There shall be no order as to costs: