IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) j THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE * TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 14048 OF 2025 Between: ^ M/s. Palnadu Rest. & Bar, Rep. its licensee Sri Shaik Nurul Akthab, S/o. Mahaboob Jani, Aged about 54 years, D.No. 13-1-280/A, New Ward No.9, T.S.No.1536, Vinukonda Road, Narasaraopet Municipality District. Palnadu ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Guntur, Guntur District. 4. The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 5. The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3 rd Respondents in suspending the 2B Bar license i.e., L.No.49/2022-25, dated may 09.09.2022 with immediate effect vide his proceedings in and further directing the 5th dated 26.05.2025 of the 4th Rc.No.273/2022/B2, dated 26.05.2025 .Respondent vide Rc.No.90/2022/B2, ^Respondent to close the 2B Bar unit until further orders as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and also in violation of principles of natural justice consequently to set aside the same by passing such other as this Hon'ble Court and order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2()9fi Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Proceedings in Rc.No.273/2022/B2, dated 26.05.2025 and Rc.No.90/2022/B2 4*'^ Respondents respectively. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. DILIP JAVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 praying that in the circumstances dated 26.05.2025 of the 3^^ and to 5: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER 7 APHC010278722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 14048/2025 Between: Palnadu Rest And Bar ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S DILIP JAYA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri S.Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Y.Hari Swapna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. 2. It is contended that the petitioner was granted license in Form II B vide proceedings dated 09.09.2022 for sale of liquor of Indian made foreign liquor(IMFL) and foreign liquor(FL) within the premises of the petitioner 2 r-, bearing No.49/2022-25 (D. No.9-102). It is alleged that a decoy operation^ was conducted on 16.05.2025 by the officials of Excise Department and found that the petitioner has been doing business in contravention of the license conditions in as much as the petitioner has sold the liquor for taking away of the same, from out of the premises of the Bar (take away purchase). Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 17.05.2025 was issued requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the license shall not be cancelled. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has submitted its explanation. The petitioner vide the said explanation has sought for supply of a copy of the video footage and laboratory report of the seized liquor bottles, enable it to submit a comprehensive reply. It is contended that without supplying the video footage sought by the petitioner, the 4 respondent has passed the impugned order by observing that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not a plausible explanation. Accordingly, ordered for immediate suspension of the license. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of an instant writ petition. th The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is gross violation of principles of natural justice. Behind the back of the petitioner, a decoy operation is alleged to have been conducted 3. without furnishing the copies of reports that formed the basis for issuance of the show cause notice, despite the specific request made by the 3 petitioner. The observation of the 4*^ respondent that explanation is not satisfactory is arbitrary and is required to be set aside. Accordingly prayed for set aside of the same. 4. The Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has placed before the court a copy of the instructions received by him in the case. 5. A perusal of the same would reflect that the same facts have \ been reiterated as were stated in the show cause notice and in the impugned order. 6. Considered the rival submissions. 7. A perusal of the impugned order would reflect that the petitioner’s specific request for supply of the copy of video footage, on which he based his commitment to give a comprehensive reply^has not answered, although the same has been referred to by the 4*^ respondent while passing the impugned order. The 4‘^ respondent did not give any reasons as to why the request of the petitioner was turned down. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to remit the matter to 4**^ respondent for passing of the orders afresh. Accordingly, the impugned order in the Writ Petition is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondents for passing orders afresh, after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be 8. 4 completed within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. SD/- G HELA NAIDU assistant register WER //TRUE COPY// S To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise District. 4. The District Prohibition and Exbise Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 5. The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 6. One CC to Sri S. Dilip Jaya Ram, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCS to GP for Prohibition and Excise, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. , Guntur, Guntur ssb HIGH COURT DATED:05/06/2025 O^ANDH^ 5 • S JUN 2125 J . Cunw* S*ciion 2®espATC^^ ORDER WP.No.14048 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS