Judgment (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Teles, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30/07/2001 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 29/08/2001 passed by respondent no.1. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under: The petitioner was granted licence bearing No.169 by the State Government for wholesale of Indian made foreign liquor in the premises belonging to the Municipality of Bicholim, situated at Bicholim Taluka. The petitioner was also granted licence bearing no.178 for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor/ country liquor in sealed bottles in the same premises. The petitioner was conducting business in the said premises. On 30/06/2001, the officers of the Excise Department conducted surprise inspection of the said premises. The team found certain irregularities having been committed by the petitioner. As such, respondent no.2 issued show cause notice dated 04/07/2001 to the petitioner bringing to his notice the irregularities noticed and calling upon him to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken for the said irregularities. The irregularities which were noticed at the time of inspection were as follows: (i) Full account of transactions of liquor undertaken by the licensee was not maintained. (ii) The copies of licences issued to the licensee were not hung in a conspicuous place within the licensed premises. (iii) On taking the search of the licensed premises, the licensee had in his possession the following liquor goods which were not manufactured by the licensed manufacturer a) 05x48x180 m1 of Directors Special Whisky b) 11x750 ml of Old Monk XX Rum (iv) The licensee failed to produce the bills, transport permits justifying the bonafide purchases/ possession of the liquor goods mentioned at (3) here in above, which were not found to be genuine thereby encouraging transaction of duplicate liquor goods. 4. The petitioner showed cause on 09/07/2001. Respondent no.2 by order dated 02/08/2001 in exercise of power conferred on him under Section 16(1) of Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short) held that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Rules 43, 101 and 103 and Sections 8(2), 7, 9 and 36 of the Act. Respondent no.2 imposed fine of Rs. 10,000/-each for the above offences and further imposed penalty of Rs.2 Lakhs. Respondent no.2 imposed fine of Rs. 10,000/-each for the above offences and further imposed penalty of Rs.2 Lakhs. Respondent no.2 further directed that the entire fine amount shall be paid by the petitioner within 7 days. Both the licenses for wholesale of Indian made foreign liquor and retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor/ country liquor were cancelled forthwith. The liquor attached was also ordered to be confiscated in favour of the Government and further ordered for destruction. 5. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 40 of the Act to the respondent no.1/Chief Secretary, Government of Goa. After hearing the petitioner, respondent no.1 passed the order partly allowing the appeal. Respondent no.1 held that imposition of penalty of Rs.2 Lakhs was excessive and quashed the same. Respondent no.1 further directed that the liquor be not destroyed as there may be some genuine stock lying in the premises. Respondent no.2/ the Commissioner was, therefore, directed to look into this aspect and take appropriate decision regarding destruction of confiscated stock of liquor. Thereafter, the petitioner sought clarification/ review of the order. However, by order 08/03/2002, respondent no.1 held that the application seeking clarification/ review was not maintainable and dismissed the same. 6. Mr. Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.1 has not taken into consideration several contentions taken in the appeal which were urged at the time of hearing. Mr. Teles submits that although several grounds were urged in the memo of appeal and urged before respondent no.1, respondent no.1 by a cryptic order, without considering the contentions urged before him and without giving reasons, dismissed the appeal. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by respondents no.1 and 2 be quashed and set aside. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. Perusal of the order dated 29/08/2001 passed by respondent no.1 discloses that respondent no.1 has not considered several contentions taken and urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. The impugned order is cryptic and does not disclose the reasons for not allowing the appeal, and for remanding the matter to respondent no.2. On this ground alone, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 29/08/2001 passed by respondent no.1, is liable to be set aside. 9. The impugned order is cryptic and does not disclose the reasons for not allowing the appeal, and for remanding the matter to respondent no.2. On this ground alone, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 29/08/2001 passed by respondent no.1, is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, therefore, the impugned order dated 29/08/2001 is set aside and matter remanded to respondent no.1 to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. The parties shall appear before respondent no.1 on 01/10/2012 at 3.00 p.m. Respondent no.1 shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously in the light of the observations made above and in any case on or before 30/11/2012. 10. Mr. Teles, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be permitted to file an application before respondent no.1. We are not inclined to grant any liberty to the petitioner. The petitioner may avail of appropriate remedy as may be available in law. 11. Needless to mention that all the contentions of the parties are kept open. 12. Rule is made partly absolute in aforesaid term. No order as to costs.