L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 18-1-2005, passed by the 1st respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar, dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 22-12-2004, passed by the 2nd respondent, the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Toddy Tappers co-operative Society. The 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 22-12-2004, directing the petitioner to explain as to why its licences shall not be suspended, on the allegation that the petitioner was found to be running a depot in an unauthorized premises. The petitioner filed WP No. 23280 of 2004, before this Court, challenging the show-cause notice. The writ petition was disposed of, at the admission stage, directing that the 2nd respondent shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, and in the event of any order of suspension being passed, it shall not be given effect to, for a period of two weeks. ( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent passed an order dated 22-12-2004, suspending the licence of the petitioner, and it was served upon the petitioner on 28-12-2004. On 3-1-2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. It also filed an application for grant of stay. Complaining that the 1st respondent has not passed any order in the application for stay, petitioner filed WP. No. 125 of 2005. The writ petition came up for admission on 18-1-2005, and it was adjourned till 20-1-2005. By that time, the 1st respondent has dismissed the appeal itself. ( 4 ) SRI C. B. Rammohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has reduced the entire exercise of appellate power to an empty formality. He contends that though the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under the A. P. Excise Act, the 1st respondent proceeded as though he was dealing with a caveat filed by Respondents 3 to 5. He contends that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard, and the 1st respondent did not apply his mind to the facts of the case at all. It is also his case that though the order of suspension is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in several judgments, the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal, simply by observing that he did not find any reason to interfere with the matter. It is also his case that though the order of suspension is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in several judgments, the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal, simply by observing that he did not find any reason to interfere with the matter. ( 5 ) SRI D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5, and learned Government pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for Respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submit that the reference to caveats in the impugned order does not have any effect of vitiating the same. It is their case that though the 1st respondent fixed 18-1-2005, as dated of hearing, the petitioner did not choose to address arguments, and on the other hand, submitted an application for adjournment. They submit that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. ( 6 ) THE petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the 1st respondent, aggrieved by the order dated 22-12-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent. The scope of powers conferred on the 1 st respondent is very wide. The appeal, for all practical purposes, is to be treated as continuation of the original proceedings. The petitioner approached this Court soon after it received a show-cause notice dated 2-12-2004, issued by the 2nd respondent, proposing to suspend their licences. The writ petition was disposed of directing that, in the event of an order of suspension being passed, it shall not be given effect to, for a period of two weeks, from the date of service. An order of suspension was passed on 22-12-2004, and it was served upon the petitioner on 28-12-2004. It remained suspended for a period of two weeks thereafter. When the petitioner filed an application for stay, the 1st respondent was under obligation to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. In fact, the petitioner filed WP. No. 125 of 2005 before this Court, complaining about his inaction. ( 7 ) IT is true that, it is competent for the 1st respondent to take up the appeal straightaway, instead of considering the application for stay, separately. For the purpose, he has to ensure that all the parties are served with the notices of hearing, and the record is ready. ( 7 ) IT is true that, it is competent for the 1st respondent to take up the appeal straightaway, instead of considering the application for stay, separately. For the purpose, he has to ensure that all the parties are served with the notices of hearing, and the record is ready. A perusal of the impugned order dated 18-1-2005, discloses that Respondents 3 to 5 herein have filed caveat, and the matter was fixed for hearing on 18-1-2005. The notice of hearing was received by the petitioner on 16-1-2005. Therefore, Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the 1st respondent filed a memo, on 18-1-2005, requesting grant of 8 days time. It was on 18-1-2005, that it came to know that caveats were filed and the matter is being contested by the private parties. ( 8 ) IT was mandatory on the part of the 1st respondent to have accommodated the request of the petitioner and granted them reasonable opportunity. Instead, he has proceeded to decide the appeal, then and there. The record was produced by the 1st respondent in person. He did not make any endorsement on the application dated 18-1-2005, made by the petitioner, seeking adjournment, either accepting or rejecting that request. The preamble of the order passed by the 1st respondent reads as under:"whereas Sri P. Ramulu Goud and others have filed caveat petition through their counsel to represent their allegations in respect of TCS Group, Mahabubnagar and against Sri G. Venkat Ramulu Goud, president, PTCS Group, Mahabubnagar. The said caveat petitioners have appeared on 11-1-2005 at 11:30 a. m. and represented their grievances in consequences of TCS group, Mahabubnagar through their Counsel and requested to issue notice to Sri G. Venkat Ramulu Goud, PTCS Group, mahabubnagar for hearing his grievances on 18-1-2005 at 11:30 a. m. , for taking final decision, but he has not attended on the said date and time and requested to give him (8) days permission to appear and to submit required papers for enquiry on the said date and time. The caveat petitioners who have filed an implead petition to implead them as parties to the appeal through their Counsel. The Counsel for the caveat and implead petitioner has represented their grievances on 18-1-2005 at 11:30 am" ( 9 ) THE order does not disclose that either the request of the petitioner for adjournment was acceded to, or rejected. The caveat petitioners who have filed an implead petition to implead them as parties to the appeal through their Counsel. The Counsel for the caveat and implead petitioner has represented their grievances on 18-1-2005 at 11:30 am" ( 9 ) THE order does not disclose that either the request of the petitioner for adjournment was acceded to, or rejected. Not a word was said about the application for stay. The 1st respondent proceeded as through he was dealing with the caveat, than with the appeal, preferred by the petitioner. After referring to the facts, that gave rise to the filing of the appeal, the 1st respondent indicated his conclusions in the following manner:"i have gone through the records produced before me by the Prohibition and Excise superintendent, Mahabubnagar and the remarks submitted by him in this case. The action taken by the Prohibition and excise Superintendent, Mahabubnagar in suspending the licences bearing Nos. 52 to 60, 40, 67, 66, 68, 2, 7, 2, 7, dated 3-10-2002 i. e. , Mahabubnagar Shop Nos. 1 to 9, allipur, Palkonda, Yenugonda No. 2 and venkatapur (A) of Mahabubnagar Mandal, chinnaderpally and Kothapct of Hanwada mandal and Hasnapur and Amisthapur of Bhootpur Mandal respectively valid upto 31-3-2007 being held by Sri G. Venkat ramulu Goud, S/o Sandanna Goud, R/o. Bandamidipally of Mahabubnagar Mandal, president PTCS, Mahabubnagar Group pending enquiry is in accordance with the rules. I find no reason to interfere into the matter. Hence, the appeal filed by Sri G. Venkat ramulu Goud S/o Sandanna Goud, PTCS, mahabubnagar is hereby rejected". ( 10 ) TO say the least, the 1st respondent has reduced the entire appeal to farcical levels. This Court was rather shocked and surprised about the manner in which the 1st respondent dealt with the appeal from the point of view of the contents, the timing, and the application of mind. On being asked about the unsatisfactory manner of disposal of the appeal, the 1st respondent stated that he did not have any experience, in the matter of disposal of the appeals, and that it was the first of the cases dealt with by him. But for this fact, this Court would have thought of issuing directions to the concerned authorities, to relieve such officials from the occasions of exercising of appellate powers. It is hoped that the 1st respondent would improve upon. But for this fact, this Court would have thought of issuing directions to the concerned authorities, to relieve such officials from the occasions of exercising of appellate powers. It is hoped that the 1st respondent would improve upon. ( 11 ) LEANED Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon certain decisions rendered by this Court in support of his contention, that the order of suspension is unsustainable, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the judgment in TCS Kosgi Group v. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, 1996 (1) ALD 69 = 1995 (3) ALT 760 . Another contention is that the 2nd respondent did not indicate the period for which the licence is suspended and there it amounts to cancellation. This Court does not intend to go into the merits of the matter, because of the reason that the impugned order suffers from procedural lapses, and the appeal needs to be heard afresh, duly ensuring that the procedural lapses do not recur. ( 12 ) HENCE, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh disposal. He shall ensure that proper notices of hearing is served upon the petitioner, and that the matter is dealt with, on merits, dispassionately, and uninfluenced by any extraneous factors. ( 13 ) IT is prima facie found that the excise Officials did not find any adulterated toddy from the shops run by the petitioner. In TCS Kosgi Group v. Prohibition and excise Superintendent (supra), it was held that suspension of licence on the basis of statement given by a person unconnected with the society, is unsustainable. Therefore, the order dated 22-12-2004, shall remain suspended, pending the disposal of the appeal by the 1st respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.