Judgment : On 10.10.2013, at about 09.30 a.m., the Prohibition & Excise Inspector of Enforcement, Ranga Reddy along with the staff and panchas appears to have inspected the Toddy Cooperative Society shop run by the writ petitioner herein. From the suspension order passed by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Mahaboobnagar, dated 03.02.2014, I gather that the inspecting party found one person conducting toddy sales in the shop and their enquiries disclosed that the name of that person is Sri G. Yadaiah, S/o Mogulaiah, R/o Burhanpur Village and that individual has also stated that he is selling the toddy on behalf of the licence holder. The person, Sri G. Yadaiah, who was conducting sales, has also shown a copy of the licence bearing No. 02 of 2007, dated 01.10.2007 which was valid up to 30.09.2017. After verifying the boundaries of the shop and finding it tallying with those mentioned in the licence, the officers collected small quantity of toddy from each bottle into a clean plastic bucket and then took 5 ml. of the same into a clean test tube and tested the product sold there with prescribed chemicals in the presence of the panchas. The chemical test carried out by the inspecting officials has revealed that the product is free from adulteration of ‘Chloral Hydrate’. However, on suspicion, the inspecting officers have drawn three samples of toddy under the cover of a panchnama and handed over the same to the Station House Officer, Kodangal Police Station, for taking further action in the matter. The Station House Officer, Kodangal Police Station registered a case in P.C.R.No. 984/2013-14 on 10.10.2013 under Rule 27(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licenses Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 against the President of the TCS toddy shop and produced the case papers and property before the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodangal, with a request to send one of the samples to the Government Chemical Examiner for Prohibition & Excise, Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis and report. After receiving the chemical analysis report from the Regional Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Hyderabad, the Station House Officer, Kodangal Police Station submitted a report on 07.01.2014 informing that the finding of the laboratory revealed that the same is the fermented toddy adulterated with ‘Alprozalam’. After receiving the chemical analysis report from the Regional Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Hyderabad, the Station House Officer, Kodangal Police Station submitted a report on 07.01.2014 informing that the finding of the laboratory revealed that the same is the fermented toddy adulterated with ‘Alprozalam’. Hence, the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Mahaboobnagar passed the impugned order on 03.02.2014, exercising the power available to him under Section 31(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, suspending the licence of the writ petitioner, with immediate effect pending enquiry, in public interest. It is this order dated 03.02.2014, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise. Dr. Narasimha has raised various contentions including the contention that prior to passing this order on 03.02.2014, the Excise Superintendent has not put the petitioner on notice at all, whereas Section 31 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that no licence shall be cancelled or suspended unless the holder thereof is given an opportunity of making his representation against the action proposed. Hence, Dr. Narasimha would contend that contrary to the specific mandate contained in Section 31 of the Act, the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent has not provided any such opportunity before the licence of the writ petitioner is suspended, hence, for that very reason, the impugned order dated 03.02.2014 shall be treated as illegal and deserves to be set aside. Dr. Lakshmi Narasimha has also placed reliance upon various judgments rendered by this Court including the one rendered in K. Srinivasa Reddy v. Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise ( 2002 (1) ALT 108 (D.B.), wherein this Court held that where there is no opportunity provided to the licence-holder before passing the final order under Section 31, any such exercise is bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon another judgment of this Court rendered in GokaBujjamma v. Prohibition & Excise Superintendent (2003(2) ALT 549 (D.B.), wherein also, a similar principle has been enunciated as in the case of K. Srinivasa Reddy (cited 1 supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon another judgment of this Court rendered in GokaBujjamma v. Prohibition & Excise Superintendent (2003(2) ALT 549 (D.B.), wherein also, a similar principle has been enunciated as in the case of K. Srinivasa Reddy (cited 1 supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment in Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society v. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Enforcement ( 2003(2) ALT 747 ), where the learned Single Judge of this Court held that any order passed without putting the licence-holder on notice and providing him an opportunity before suspending or cancelling his licence, is liable to be treated to have been vitiated. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has very spiritedly opposed this Writ Petition. She has drawn my attention to the judgment rendered by a Full Bench in Tappers Cooperative Society, Maddur v. Superintendent of Excise, Mahaboobnagar (1986) 1 Andh W R 387). The majority opinion is rendered by Justice P. Kodanda Ramayya in the above case, while the Chief Justice K. Madhava Reddy has rendered a dissenting opinion. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is right in pointing out that in paragraph 41 of the majority opinion, it is held that the power of suspension pending enquiry is a concomitant or adjunct to grant of licence, but however, the same shall be used in appropriate exercise. The contention canvassed before the Full Bench that in the absence of any provision specifically conferring power to place the licence under suspension pending enquiry, no such order can be passed, is repelled. I have therefore, no hesitation to uphold the plea raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the order of the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Mahaboobnagar, placing the licence of the writ petitioner under suspension pending enquiry, cannot be declared as illegal only for the reason that there is no specific provision either under the statute or in the Rules framed there under. Power to place a licence under suspension pending enquiry, is a natural, ancillary and an adjunct to the power to grant a licence. What Section 31 of the Act deals with is an issue relating to cancellation or suspension of a licence as a punitive measure. Power to place a licence under suspension pending enquiry, is a natural, ancillary and an adjunct to the power to grant a licence. What Section 31 of the Act deals with is an issue relating to cancellation or suspension of a licence as a punitive measure. Depending upon the gravity of the circumstances, relating to violation of the conditions of the grant or any of the terms or provisions of the statue or Rules or Regulations on the subject, the licensing authority can appropriately modulate the further action against such licensees. If the violation indulged in by the licensee is either considered to be too grave, or where it is found by the competent authority as not appropriate to allow the licensee to carry on his business any further, in view of the larger public interest, the licensing authority may cancel the licence itself. Sometimes, the circumstances relating to the violations indulged in by the licensee or his nowkarnama holder could be condonable to a certain extent. For instance, if the licensee violates any of the non-substantive provisions of law, which are purely procedural in nature, the violation indulged in that regard by the licensee can, perhaps, be considered to be on a minor scale. Even such violations are required to be dealt with, with a stern hand, so that the licensee will learn the correct lesson therefrom and avoid repetition at any later point of time. Hence, by suspending the licence for a specified period, let us say 3 to 6 months, an appropriate message will percolate that any violation indulged in by the licensee would be viewed seriously and would be dealt with sternly, so that the business operations would be conducted in such a manner that they fall squarely in line with the requirements of law and the conditions stipulated subject to which the license is granted to him. The suspension resorted to in such cases is a substantive measure. It has a punitive effect, but however, suspension pending enquiry will not have any punitive characteristics. It is, no doubt, true that during the suspension pending enquiry period also, the business operations will come to a grinding halt, but nonetheless, it will be only for too short a period. The enquiry will have to be conducted duly following the procedure prescribed therefor and also by observing the principles of natural justice. It is, no doubt, true that during the suspension pending enquiry period also, the business operations will come to a grinding halt, but nonetheless, it will be only for too short a period. The enquiry will have to be conducted duly following the procedure prescribed therefor and also by observing the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of suspension pending enquiry cannot be treated as having any punitive effect on the licensee. However, Dr. Narasimha has pointed out that the circumstances must warrant exercise of power. Availability of power is one aspect of the matter and its exercise in a fair and proper manner is altogether another aspect of the matter. I am conscious that every power is an extremely limited power conferred in the hands of the competent authority either by the statute- maker or the one, who has been authorized to make subordinate legislation. Therefore, such powers are conferred upon certain hierarchy of officers out of trust and confidence that the same will be used judiciously and cautiously and that there will not be any scope for any misuse or abuse. The circumstances of each case are required to be taken into account and consideration. All violations indulged in by a licensee need not necessarily be viewed under a magnifying lenses, but however, in the instant case, the allegation is with regard to adulteration indulged in by the licensee or his nowkarnama holder. Adulteration of toddy cannot be viewed as a minor or insignificant violation of the terms of grant. Adulteration of toddy will have a tell-tale effect and impact on its consumers. Therefore, the State has an objective in preventing any such adulteration from taking place at all. Adulteration of toddy has got to be dealt with, with a firm hand, and hence, in the instant case, I am not in a position to subscribe to the view point canvassed by Dr. Narasimha that there is no warrant for placing the licence of the writ petitioner under suspension. Hence, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. But however, there is one aspect which Dr. Narasimha has pointed out. Rule 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licenses Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007, has provided a fairly detailed and exhaustive procedure as to how samples have to be drawn. But however, there is one aspect which Dr. Narasimha has pointed out. Rule 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licenses Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007, has provided a fairly detailed and exhaustive procedure as to how samples have to be drawn. The most important and relevant part of that Rule reads as under: “…….. If the licensee desires that the sample should be sent for analysis to an independent laboratory, he may apply to the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent within three (3) days of drawl of sample. In case, where licensee or any one of his nowkarnama holder was not present at the time of taking of sample, the licensee may apply to the concerned Prohibition & Excise Superintendent within seven (7) days from the date of communication of drawl of sample…………….” No where the impugned order would record the factum that Sri G. Yadaiah was the nowkarnama holder of the licensee. It is rather surprising that an Enforcement wing official of the Prohibition & Excise Department missed out to record such a factum. If Sri G. Yadaiah was not the nowkarnama holder of the licensee, he could not have applied for analysis of the second sample within three days period. The absence of the licensee or his nowkarnama holder, at the time of drawl of sample, therefore, requires the respondents to communicate, in writing, the factum of drawl of sample from the shop of the licensee, but the impugned order does not make any reference to any such communication. In my opinion, this is a failure on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the suspension order dated 03.02.2014, at best, can be understood as the notice delivered to the licensee that the sample has been drawn from out of his licensed shop premises. In such cases where no intimation relating to drawl of sample has been delivered to the licensee, the seven-day period built into the aforementioned portion of Rule 27(1) of the Rules, commences with the date of receipt of the order of suspension. Where the factum of drawl of sample has been noted, within seven days period, if a licensee were to apply for analysis of the second sample, the Excise Superintendent cannot refuse to either receive any such application or act thereon by securing the analysis of the second sample. Where the factum of drawl of sample has been noted, within seven days period, if a licensee were to apply for analysis of the second sample, the Excise Superintendent cannot refuse to either receive any such application or act thereon by securing the analysis of the second sample. It is time for the Excise officials to realize that the delay in intimation of the drawl of the samples is likely to cause enormous benefit to the licensee as passage of time is likely to impact upon the accuracy of the result of the chemical analysis of the sample. Therefore, failure to deliver the intimation of drawl of sample to the licensee by the department would amount to rendering a help to the licensee instead of trying to help the cause of the department. I am sure the present episode will draw the required attention of the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise and he would immediately take remedial measures by issuing necessary circular to all concerned as to the requirement to deliver notice, in writing, of the drawl of sample to the licenses whenever such samples have been drawn in the absence of the licensee or his nowkarnama holder. Hence, the Excise Superintendent, Mahaboobnagar is directed to receive any such request from the writ petitioner for sending the second sample for analysis to any independent laboratory and then, take the report into account and consideration. Moment an order of suspension pending enquiry is passed, appropriate action must be initiated for conducting the enquiry. Enquiry will have to be completed within a time frame of 30 days. If the licensee were to ask for time, it would be a different matter, but any failure on the part of the officials to complete the enquiry in quick time is likely to degenerate into a punitive measure by itself, as was already pointed out. If suspension as a punitive measure is to be imposed upon a licensee, the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing to him as built in under Section 31 has got to be complied with. Therefore, the respondents shall conclude the entire enquiry within 30 days and based upon their findings, action considered appropriate shall be taken. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.