ORDER This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent, in suspending the petitioner's A4 licence, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. I have heard Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is a retail dealer of Indian Made Liquor holding A4 licence. On 14.3.2013, the Prohibition and Excise Officials inspected the petitioner's liquor shop and allegedly found 11 boxes of non-duty paid liquor. Based on the Panchanama and the report submitted by the Inspecting Officials, the respondent has initiated proceedings against the petitioner. Pending those proceedings, he has initiated departmental action against the petitioner and suspended the petitioner's licence under Section 31 (1)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'), pending enquiry. 4. At the hearing, Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that under Section 63 of the Act, his client has alternative remedies of two successive appeals and that however, the reason for the petitioner filing this writ petition bypassing the said remedies is that the respondent has recorded peremptory finding relating to his involvement in violation of the licence conditions. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s. Sree Devi Wines v. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kakinada and others, 1995 (1) ALD 164 . 5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the respondent has made an observation that the petitioner is involved in violation of the licence conditions. However, in the immediate next sentence he has stated as under: "Thus it calls for initiation of departmental action under Section 31 (1)(b) A.P. Excise Act, 1968, pending further enquiry in the public interest." No doubt, if the sentence preceding the above quoted part of the order passed by respondent No. 1 is read in isolation, it would definitely give an impression that the respondent has arrived at a final conclusion on the petitioner's violation of licence conditions. However, if the above quoted sentence is read along with the previous part of his order, such an impression will get obliterated. One needs to be conscious of the fact that the respondent is not a judicially trained officer. However, if the above quoted sentence is read along with the previous part of his order, such an impression will get obliterated. One needs to be conscious of the fact that the respondent is not a judicially trained officer. Even though it is desirable that appropriate expressions need to be deployed in the orders passed by the administrative/ quasi-judicial bodies, to dispel apprehensions in the minds of the persons likely to be affected by such orders, the inadequacy in expressions would not render the orders- passed by such authorities ipso facto illegal or invalid. The overall circumstances under which such orders are passed and the context in which such expressions are used need to be understood in right perspective. No doubt in M/s. Sree Devi Wines's case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has dealt with a similar order and quashed the same only on the ground that the authority therein should not have rendered peremptory finding at the enquiry stage. On the facts of the present case, I am not inclined to invalidate the impugned order passed by the respondent on that ground for the reasons already recorded by me herein before. Since the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition for adjudication on merits. 6. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. 7. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 11601 of 2013, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.