Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 765 (TS)

V. Kranthi Goud v. State of Telangana

2020-11-11

P.NAVEEN RAO

body2020
ORDER : P. Naveen Rao, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the cancellation of licence of Toddy shop, TFT Laxmapoor, Counter No. 1, Laxmapoor Village, Varni Mandal. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of writ petition on the ground that against the order of cancellation of TFT Licence, remedy of appeal is available and the petitioner without availing said remedy instituted this writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner sought to contend that prior to order of cancellation of TFT licence, the licence was suspended on 30.11.2019, but this order of suspension was not preceded by notice as required by proviso to Section 31(1) of the Telangana Excise Act (for short "the Act"). He, therefore, submits that the order of cancellation is vitiated on the ground that no notice was issued prior to suspension of licence. Section 31(1) reads as under: 31. Power to cancel or suspend licence etc :- (1) Subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed, the authority granting any licence or permit under this Act, may cancel or suspend it irrespective of the period to which the licence or permit relates, (The words 'irrespective of the period to which the licence or permit relates' inserted by Act 10 of 1989. Effective from 16.9.1988) (a) if any duty or fee is payable by the holder thereof is not duly paid; or (b) in the event of any breach by the holder thereof, or by any of his servants or by any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, of any of the terms and conditions thereof; or (c) if the holder thereof or any of his servants or anyone acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, is convicted of any offence under this Act; or (d) if the holder thereof is convicted of any cognizable and non-bailable offence of any offence under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985) or under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise duties) Act, 1955, or under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, or under Section 481, Section 482, Section 483, Section 484, Section 485, Section 486, Section 487, Section 488 or Section 489 of the Indian Penal Code or any offence punishable under Section 112 or Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 irrespective of the fact whether such conviction relates to the period earlier or subsequent to the grant of licence or permit; or (e) If the conditions of the licence or permit provide for such cancellation or suspension at will: Provided that no such licence or permit shall be cancelled or suspended unless the holder thereof is given an opportunity of making his representation against the action proposed. 5. From the reading of Section 31(1) of the Act and the proviso appended thereto, it is apparent that proviso envisages notice prior to suspension of licence and also envisages notice prior to cancellation of licence. These two are independent proceedings. It is not necessary that TFT Licence should be suspended before resorting to cancellation of licence. Further, merely because, suspension order was not preceded by notice, it does not automatically vitiate the order of cancellation of licence. Furthermore, the order of suspension was not challenged on the ground that it was not preceded by notice, before further steps were taken by the competent authority to cancel the licence and ultimately passing orders cancelling the licence. Further, merely because, suspension order was not preceded by notice, it does not automatically vitiate the order of cancellation of licence. Furthermore, the order of suspension was not challenged on the ground that it was not preceded by notice, before further steps were taken by the competent authority to cancel the licence and ultimately passing orders cancelling the licence. Thus, on that ground, the order impugned per se cannot be held as vitiated for this Court to entertain the writ petition without relegating the petitioner to avail the statutorily engrafted remedy of appeal against the order of cancellation. 6. As petitioner has an effective and efficacious remedy in the form of appeal against the cancellation of licence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal, if so advised, against the order of cancellation of TFT Licence. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.