Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 16.8.2012, suspending the F.L.3 licence granted in favour of the petitioner temporarily under Rule 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended, inter alia, that the second respondent had no authority or power to suspend the F.L.3 licence issued in favour of the petitioner, based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Kancheepuram, dated 6.8.2012. 4. The impugned order had been passed by the second respondent without proper application of mind. No opportunity had been given to the petitioner to refute the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the F.L.3 licence holder. The impugned proceedings of the second respondent had been passed without proper verification of the relevant records and without taking into consideration the fact that the appropriate Value Added Tax had already been paid by the petitioner. 5. It had been further stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, mechanically, without considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Even though Rule 22(2) of the Rules does not contemplate the issuance of a prior notice and the granting of a personal hearing before an order is passed suspending the licence, temporarily, such an opportunity ought to have been given, as the impugned order affects the licensee, adversely, resulting in heavy monetary loss and serious damage to the reputation of the licence holder. Therefore, an order could be passed, by the authority concerned, under Rule 22(2) of the Rules, only under certain circumstances, when serious irregularities are found to have been committed. In the present case, no such serious irregularities are found to have been committed by the licence holder and therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. In the present case, no such serious irregularities are found to have been committed by the licence holder and therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. It has been further stated that in the report of the third respondent, dated 30.8.2012, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is carrying on its activities only in accordance with the conditions of the F.L.3 licence granted in its favour and that no irregularities had been committed, as alleged in the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 16.8.2012, suspending the F.L.3 licence granted in favour of the petitioner, temporarily. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 16.8.2012, is liable to be set aside. 7. It had been further stated that a copy of the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Kancheepuram, dated 6.8.2012, based on which the impugned order had been passed by the second respondent, had not been furnished to the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that no endorsement had been obtained, either from the licensee, or from the person authorised to make such an endorsement, authenticating the particulars noted by the officers, who had conducted the inspection, on 4.8.2012 and 5.8.2012. 9. It had also been stated that no samples of liquor had been taken, by the inspecting officers, at the time of the inspection. Further, no proper stock verification had been made at the time of the inspection. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is only temporary in nature. The suspension of the F.L.3 licence, granted in favour of the petitioner, had been suspended by the order of the second respondent, dated 16.8.2012, based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Kancheepuram, dated 6.8.2012. The impugned order had been passed by the second respondent, suspending the licence granted in favour of the petitioner, due to the irregularities pointed out in the said order. There is no provision in Rule 22(2) of the Rules, for the issuance of a notice, or for the grant of an opportunity of hearing to the licence holder before suspending the licence. There is no provision in Rule 22(2) of the Rules, for the issuance of a notice, or for the grant of an opportunity of hearing to the licence holder before suspending the licence. Even though the report of the third respondent, dated 30.8.2012, is in favour of the petitioner, it is for the second respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, under Rule 22(1) of the Rules. Therefore, the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, challenging the impugned order of the second respondent, is pre-mature in nature. It is for the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the second respondent and to await the final order to be passed by the said authority, under Rule 22(1) of the Rules. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 16.8.2012, based on the report submitted by Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Kancheepuram, dated 6.8.2012. However, the said report had not been furnished to the petitioner before the impugned order had been passed by the second respondent, under Rule 22(2) of the Rules, suspending the F.L.3 licence granted in favour of the petitioner. 12. It is also noted that the petitioner had already paid the Value Added Tax for the relevant period. Further, the third respondent, in the report, dated 30.8.2012, has stated that no irregularities had been committed by the licensee. The said report had been sent to the second respondent for passing appropriate orders thereon. In such circumstances, this court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 16.8.2012, suspending the F.L.3 licence issued in favour of the petitioner. It is for the second respondent to consider the report of the third respondent, dated 30.8.2012, and pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to be conducted, pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 27.8.2012, issued to the petitioner, under Rule 22(1) of the Rules. It is for the second respondent to consider the report of the third respondent, dated 30.8.2012, and pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to be conducted, pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 27.8.2012, issued to the petitioner, under Rule 22(1) of the Rules. The second respondent shall pass such orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the licensee, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The seal and the lock shall be removed by the authority concerned, forthwith, to enable the licensee to run the bar in question, subject to the final order to be passed, under Rule 22(1) of the Rules. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.