APHC010684932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 35596/2025 Between: 1. M/S. GEETHA WINES,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX MULI GEETHA REDDY, D/O. MULI RAYAPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7-174/5/C, RENTACHINTALA VLLAGE AND MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, EXCISE BUILDING, MANGALAGIRIGUNTURDISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT PROHIBITIONAND EXCISE OFFICER, PALNADU DISTRICT, NARASARAOPET. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GURAZALA PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION PALNADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the 2 nature of Mandamus Issue an appropriate writ, preferably in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the impugned predetermined show cause notice in Rc.No. 76/2024/C1 datedi0.12.2025 for suspension of A4 shop license issued by the 3 rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, without application of mind and violation of Art.19(1) (g) of constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned notice in Rc.No. 76/2024/Cl dated 10.12.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay the impugned show cause notice vide proceedings in Rc.No. 76/2024/Cl dated 10.12.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent by allowing the petitioner to conduct his legitimate business pending finalization of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.35596 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned predetermined show cause notice in Rc.No.76/2024/C1 dated 10.12.2025 for suspension of A4 shop license issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, without application of mind and violation of Art.19(1)(g) of constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned notice in Rc.No.76/2024/C1 dated 10.12.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Assailing the show cause notice dated 10.12.2025, the present writ petition has been filed on the grounds that the notice is ex facie illegal, violates principles of natural justice and is contrary to the judgment rendered in W.A.No.413 of 2019 dated 20.11.2019. 3. Heard Sri Annamneedi Balakrishna, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for respondents. 4. Upon reviewing the impugned order, a show cause notice dated 10.12.2025 was issued by the 3rd respondent calling for an explanation from the petitioner, as to why the petitioner’s A4 license should not be suspended on the ground that the petitioner had reserved unauthorized liquor stocks in the premises (without HEALs stocks), thereby willfully violating the licensing 4 conditions stipulated in Rule 54 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant Of License for Selling by shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules 2024. 5. The said show cause notice was impugned in the present writ petition on the grounds that the action of the 3rd respondent-District Prohibition & Excise Officer, is arbitrary, illegal, capricious, malafide, and grossly disproportionate and predetermined, ex-facie illegal, without jurisdiction and issued in gross violation of principles of natural justice, the fundamental jurisdictional errors and procedural infirmities, undisclosed material and is founded on suspicion and surmise rather than any prima facie material directly attributable to the petitioner. Such high handed action threatening suspension of the license without any cogent evidence of breach by the licensee himself is violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned show cause notice. 6. In the case of Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 1 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a writ Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction or a notice without a specific provision of law, does not contain any reason to offer explanation and when a notice is issued with pre- meditation. 1 2006 (12) SCC 28 5 7. When the notice containing reasons to form an opinion, which is required to be reflected in the notice itself, will not render the notice illegal or make an issue of violation of principle of natural justice and may not be result of predetermined mind. Therefore, it is the duty cast upon the person challenging the notice to show that there is an indication of predetermined mind of the authority issuing the notice. It is the specific case of the Excise department that the petitioner is doing business without HEALs. In an event of predetermined mind, even if the Courts directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, once a decision has been taken, there is tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose. [See K.I. Shepherd & other Etc., Vs Union of India and others2]. 8. At this juncture the learned counsel for the petitioner would request this Court to grant a reasonable time to submit an explanation to the impugned show cause notice dated 10.12.2025, and the respondents may be directed to consider the same. 9. Learned Government Pleader does not refute the said submission. 10. In view of the above submissions, without going into the merits of the matter, the present Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit an explanation to the show cause notice dated 10.12.2025 within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On submission of such explanation, the 3rd respondent is directed to examine the 2 (1987) 4 SCC 431 6 same, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 22.12.2025 KBN 7 53 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.35596 of 2025 Date: 22.12.2025 KBN