M. Jagadeeswara Pandian vs The Assistant Commissioner (Excise) and Others

K.A. Swami, C.J.—As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, we have directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice for the

respondents. Accordingly, we have heard the appeal itself for final disposal.

In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant sought for quashing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Dindigul, in R.O.C.

No. 8608/95/J3 dated 30th January, 1995 suspending the I.M.F.L. Licence 8/93-94 temporarily for a period of 90 days in exercise of the power

under Rule 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

The contention raised before us is that as per Rule 19(2) of the Rules, reasons are required to be furnished within 5 days from the date of

suspension. As no reasons are furnished within 5 days, the order of suspension should fall to the ground.

Rule 19(2) of the Rules reads thus:--

Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the licensing authority may temporarily suspend the licence for a period not exceeding ninety days,

pending framing of charges for violation of irregularities noticed. In such a case, the reason for suspension shall be communicated to the licensee

within five days from the date of suspension.

No doubt, according to the said rule, the reasons are to be furnished to the licensee within 5 days from the date of suspension. In the instant

case, the order of suspension dated 30.1.1996, it is not in dispute, has been served on him on the same day. The rule does not state that the order

of suspension need not contain reasons and those reasons should be separately furnished. In a case where the order of temporary suspension

contains reasons for it, it is not necessary to communicate the reasons separately, inasmuch as the very order of suspension containing the reasons

would be sufficient communication of the reasons to the licensee. Rule 19(2) has been provided to safeguard the interest of the Revenue, and also

to prevent illegal sale of liquor and spurious liquor. Rule 19(1) of the Rules which provides for cancellation or suspension of the licence in the case

of violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the conditions of licence specifically enjoins upon the Authority that it should be done

only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the licensee including a personal hearing to state his case in writing against the proposed cancellation

or suspension. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 should be read in the background of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19. Therefore, the power under Sub-rule (2) of

Rule 19 has to be exercised in exceptional cases and where the Authority is satisfied that there is a clinching evidence of violation of the provisions

of the Act, Rules and the conditions of licence and the delay in suspending the licence is going to cause further harm or irreparable injury, because

in the event it is found that no violation is committed by the licensee, he would have suffered the suspension without any reason or rhyme.

Therefore, the Authority exercising the power under Rule 19(2) of the Rules has to take every care and precaution before exercising the power

and ensure that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, such an action is warranted. It is also necessary for the Authority to give cogent reasons

as to why such an action is needed. In the instant case, as we propose to direct the 1st respondent to complete the inquiry within a period of 2

weeks, we do not consider it necessary to go into the correctness of the order.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of with the direction that the 1st respondent shall complete the inquiry as per Rule 19(1) of the Rules

and decide the case on or before the end of March, 1995. The order of the learned Single Judge shall stand modified accordingly. The C.M.P. is

also disposed of. No order as to costs.