Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 870 (AP)

Y. Chakravarthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-12-28

AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI

body2020
ORDER : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kiran Tirumalasetty, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents. 2. In the present writ petition challenge is to the proceedings C.R. No. 4902/2020/CPE/E3, dated 20-11-2020 issued by the office of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise-3rd respondent herein, vide proceedings Rc. No. 324/2017/B2, dated 21-05-2020, suspended the restaurant and bar licence of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner violated Rules 41 and 43(1) of A.P. (Grant of Licence of selling by Bar and conditions of Licence) Rules, 2017. Questioning the validity of the said order of suspension, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P. No. 10028 of 2020. This Court on 22-06-2020 suspended the said order of suspension of licence and the said writ petition is pending consideration before this Court. Taking into consideration the undertaking/affidavit given by the licensee, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise-2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 20-11-2020 compounding the departmental action initiated under Section 31(1)(b) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short "the Act") while asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,84,000/- under Section 47(1) of the Act without prejudice to the criminal proceedings pending in the Court against the licensee. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned action of levying Rs. 4,84,000/- towards compounding fee is highly illegal, arbitrary and not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that while passing the order of suspension, it was never the case of the respondents herein that the seals and locks were opened and the petitioner conducted business during lock down period. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that in similar circumstances, the respondents herein compounded the offences involving technical aspects by imposing compounding fee of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- only, as such, the impugned action is discriminatory and is offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that in similar circumstances, the respondents herein compounded the offences involving technical aspects by imposing compounding fee of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- only, as such, the impugned action is discriminatory and is offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. On the contrary, it is vehemently contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is absolutely no illegality nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the impugned order is not amenable to any correction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in view of availability of alternative remedy of revision to the Government under Section 64 of the Act, the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained. It is further submitted that having requested for compounding of the offence, it is not open for the petitioner herein to agitate against the order of compounding the offence passed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. 5. The information available before this Court manifestly discloses that obviously on the basis of the undertaking/affidavit filed by the petitioner herein, the authorities have forwarded the request of the petitioner to the office of Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, for compounding. It is required to be noted that earlier, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise-3rd respondent on noticing shortfall of 4 pints of Breezer and excess possession of 24 bottles of SNJ 10000 Special Super Strong Beer and 25 bottles of Kingfisher Ultra premium Beer, suspended the licence of the petitioner herein, which is not in dispute. The said order came to be suspended by this Court in the above referred W.P. No. 10028 of 2020. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that at the time of suspension of the licence of the petitioner, it was never the case of the departmental authorities that the petitioner herein removed the seals and opened the bar during the lock down period. 6. As per the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, the Government is empowered to revise any order passed by the subordinate authorities. Before passing any such order, it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to give opportunity of making a representation. 7. 6. As per the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, the Government is empowered to revise any order passed by the subordinate authorities. Before passing any such order, it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to give opportunity of making a representation. 7. Having regard to the said provision of law, keeping in view the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the said alternative remedy of revision while protecting his interest for a short-period. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioner herein to file revision before the State Government against the orders impugned in the present writ petition within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such revision is filed within the time stipulated, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed strictly in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing the petitioner herein within a period of six (06) weeks from today. Till then, no coercive action pursuant to the impugned order shall be taken against the petitioner herein. It is also made clear that this order will ensure to the benefit of the petitioner only if the petitioner files a revision within the time stipulated above. It is further made clear that in the event of failure to file the revision within the time stipulated, it is open for the respondent authorities to take action as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.