Chalamalasetty Srinivasa Rao vs Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyd.

This writ petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 28-12-1998 in Proceedings Cr. No.2434/ DPE/98/B2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Machilipatnam, dated 3-9-1998 in Proceedings No.2909/98/C2, cancelling the licence of the petitioner.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the validity of the impugned proceedings contended that the impugned orders are passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Elaborating this contention, the learned Counsel would point out that despite the petitioner requesting the 2nd respondent - the original authority to furnish copy of the Panchanama drawn on 30-7-1998, the 2nd respondent authority did not furnish copy of the same. The learned Counsel would also point out that in the reply to the show-cause notice issued u/s 31 of the Act, the petitioner specifically requested the 2nd respondent to give him an opportunity of personal hearing and to permit him to cross-examine the persons who are witnesses to the panchanarna and to give him an opportunity of oral hearing before passing any adverse order.

Therefore, the only question falls for consideration is whether the impugned orders are made in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play in action as contended by the learned Counsel. u/s 31, the power to suspend and to cancel the licence is conferred upon the 2nd respondent. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act provides that no licence or permit shall be cancelled or suspended unless the holder thereof is given an opportunity of making his representation against the action proposed. No other provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder governing the procedure to be followed in the enquiry envisaged u/s 31 of the Act are brought to the notice of the Court, and on the other hand, the learned Counsel submitted that there are no provisions governing the procedure to be followed u/s 31 of the Act except what is stated in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act.

Let me first advert to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should have been given oral hearing. It is well settled that oral hearing need not be a necessary component of fair hearing. Whether hearing envisaged under the statute should consist of oral hearing or not has to be decided by the Court with due regard to the subject-matter of the dispute or the complicity of the proceedings taken against a person. It is well settled that in certain cases right of bearing itself may be taken away by the statute. The words used in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act are very material in the context of the case. The proviso only mandates that no adverse order could be made against the licence without giving him an opportunity of making a representation against the adverse action proposed. But in the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was served with notice u/s 31 of the Act calling upon him to show-cause to the proposed adverse action of cancellation of the licence and the petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice putting forth his defence. In my considered opinion, from the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act, it cannot be said that oral hearing is contemplated in the enquiry envisaged under the said section.

5, Adverting to the allegation of the petitioner that despite his request no copy of the panchanarna was supplied to him, it is true that the petitioner in para 4 of his reply submitted to the notice stated that the panchanarna and other records which have been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent have not been supplied to the petitioner, and by reason of the same he was deprived of giving effective reply to the show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, and sought permission of the 2nd respondent to file additional explanation after those documents are supplied to him. Even assuming copies of panchanama and undisclosed ''other documents'' are not supplied to the petitioner, even then, I am of the considered opinion that in the factual context of this case, there was no failure of justice nor violation of principles of natural justice. I say this because the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, produced at page 5 of the material papers refers to the relevant facts and events that were taken place on 30-7-1998. The allegation against the petitioner is that consumption of liquor in the licensed premises was permitted when the raid was effected. In support of this allegation what were found at the time of raid were also set out in the notice itself. It is not that the petitioner was accused of violating the statute by vaguely stating that he permitted consumption of liquor in the licensed premises without furnishing necessary and relevant particulars. The show-cause notice unmistakably consists of all the relevant facts such as the dale of the raid, what were found at the time of raid. etc. In fact, the notice in substance reflects the panchanama. As regards the "other documents" to which reference is made in the reply notice, suffice it to state that the petitioner himself did not state what are the ''other documents'' that he wanted for preparation of effective reply. In that view of the matter, there is no need for the Court to dilate as regards the "other documents" whose identities are not forthcoming in the reply filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.