APHC010032202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2014/2026 Between: 1. DANTAM VENKATESH, S/O. BASAVAIAH DANTAM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. 8-75/1, NEAR SIVALAYAM, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, PANDILLAPALLI, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523184 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522 2. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, MANGALAGIRI,ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE INSPECTOR, AC, P AND E (ENFT.) ONGOLE 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION, CHIRALA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in issuing show cause notice to the writ petitioner vide Rc. No. 127120261B2, dt. 17.01 .2026 seeking explanation basing on the special report, dt. 12.01.2026 submitted by the 4th respondent which is vague and in violation of the procedure and rules as per the forwarding report dt. 13.01.2026 of the 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the show cause notice Rc. No. 127/2026/B2, dt. 17.01.2026 issued by 3rd respondent to the writ petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend all further proceedings in pursuance of the Show cause notice vide Rc. No. 12712026/B2, dt. 17.01.2026 issued by 3rd respondent against the petitioner, pending disposal of writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V RAGHU VEER 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.2014 OF 2026 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in issuing show cause notice to the writ petitioner vide Rc.No.127/2026/B2, dt.17.01.2026 seeking explanation basing on the special report, dt.12.01.2026 submitted by the 4th respondent which is vague and in violation of the procedure and rules as per the forwarding report dt.13.01.2026 of the 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the show cause notice Rc.No.127/2026/B2, dt.17.01.2026 issued by 3rd respondent to the writ petitioner and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The 3rd respondent issued show cause notice vide proceedings in Rc.No.127/2026/B2, dated 17.01.2026, calling for explanation from the petitioner, as to why the petitioner’s A4 shop license should not be cancelled. The notice alleges that, during a decoy operation conducted by the 4th respondent, the petitioner was found selling liquor at prices exceeding the maximum retail price (MRP), in violation of Condition No.11 of the license conditions and Rule 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2024. Assailing the said show cause notice, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for respondents. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the show cause notice is ex facie illegal and violates principles of natural justice. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd., and others 1, wherein it is held that the show cause notice is the foundation on which the department has to build up its case. If the allegations in the show cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary vauge, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the notice was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice. 5. Learned counsel further contends that in the case on hand the impugned notice merely states that a decoy operation was conducted and liquor was sold above MRP, without specifying essential details such as the date, time, location, quantity of liquor sold, exact overpricing, names of decoy customers, or enclosure of the decoy operation report. Absent such particulars, the petitioner is deprived of opportunity to respond. Hence, prayed to set aside the notice. 6. In the case of Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 2 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a writ Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning 1 (2007) 5 SCC 388 2 (2006) 12 SCC 28 5 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. 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. 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 others3]. 8. This Court, in similar circumstances, disposed of W.P.No.35596 of 2025 dated 22.12.2025, permitting the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders and communicate the decision to the petitioner. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and by relying on the order dated 22.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.35596 of 2025, with the consent of 3 (1987) 4 SCC 431 6 both the learned counsel, the present Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 17.01.2026, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon submission of such explanation, the respondents are directed to examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Till disposal of the explanation, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps. 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: 23.01.2026 KBN 7 121 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2014 of 2023 Date: 23.01.2026 KBN