1 Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026 Date of uploading : 02.07.2026 APHC010327442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17301/2026 Between: 1. CHADALAWADA CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S TEJA WINES (A-4 SHOP) G.S.I.NO. PKM/25, KOTHAPATNAM (V AND M) PRAKASAM DISTRICT 523286 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522238 2. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, A.P. MANGALAGIRI,GUNTUR DISTRICT 522503 3. DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 523001 4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION,ONGOLE 523001 5. RAVIPATI NARAHARI RAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER INSPECTOR, ENFORCEMENT TEAM PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 523001 ...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 a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus Issue an appropriate writ, preferably in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the impugned suspension for indefinite order Rc.No.59/2024/A5 dated 27-06-2026 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the business by suspending the impugned order dated 27-06-2026 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 the impugned order, Rc.No.59/2024/A5 dated 27-06- 2026 issued by the 3rd respondent and allow the petitioner to conduct his legitimate business pending finalization of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following order: Challenging the impugned suspension order vide Rc.No.59/2024/A5 dated 27.06.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nagaraju Pullagura, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise Department. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner is running retail liquor business 3 lawfully under the name and style of M/s Teja Wines after obtaining A-4 license on 06.11.2024 from the 3rd respondent. He further submitted that, without issuing show cause notice inviting explanation, the 3rd respondent had issued the impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2026 suspending the Form A-4 license of the petitioner. He further submitted that, the reports relied by the authorities while passing the impugned suspension orders, were not supplied to the petitioner, therefore there is violation of the principles of natural justice and it is liable to be set aside, else, it would affect the rights of the petitioner. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise Department while justifying the orders of the 3rd respondent submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. He further submitted that, in the event if this court inclines to interfere, liberty may be granted to the authority concerned to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that, without issuing show cause notice inviting explanation, without supplying the documents relied by them, the 3rd respondent has passed orders suspending the Form A-4 license of the petitioner. It is well settled that, if an adjudicatory body is going to rely on any 4 material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration and decides the matter against the party, the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him/her. 7. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned suspension notice does not speak anything about prior issuance of any show-cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. In the present case, the order impugned is passed without issuing any notice inviting explanation and without supplying the material relied by them, as such, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 8. As the order impugned is ex-facie, illegal and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending, inviting counter since the authorities cannot improvise their case by 5 filing a counter. As such this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and remand the matter to concerned authority for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The impugned order Rc.No.59/2024/A5 dated 27.06.2026 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned authority to pass fresh orders, after issuing show cause notice inviting explanation and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 30.06.2026 BRS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No