The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed Bar license suspension order by the Excise Commissioner and held that the reasons are heart and soul of order passed by the Authority.
The grievance of the petitioner is that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner pursuant to registration of case of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Kadapa under Section 36(1) (b&c), 41 of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 read with Rules 31, 41 and 48 of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Bar, Grant and conditions of License) Rules, 2022. Ten days’ time was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted explanation. On the same day, the 3rd respondent passed order suspending the license.
The Senior Counsel submitted that the order of suspension suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and that the order of suspension does not indicate the reasons for suspending the petitioner’s bar license. In support of the said contention, the Senior Counsel placed relied upon the judgment reported in case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota vs. M/s Shukla & Brothers.
The Government Pleader on the other hand contended that after considering the explanation, the suspension order dated 29.04.2024 was passed. The petitioner is having effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 63(2) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 before the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, A.P., Vijayawada.
The Apex Court in case of S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India, while emphasizing the importance of recording of reasons for decisions by the Administrative authorities and Tribunals observed that “administrative process will best be vindicated by clarity in its exercise”. Thus, further observed “the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained.”
A Single Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed that “In fact, reasons are heart and soul of the order passed by the authority. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. Thus, as seen from the suspension order, no reasons are assigned except mentioning that the explanation is not satisfactory. Apart from that, the suspension order, impugned does not indicate period of suspension. The authority shall mention period of suspension also in the order. On both counts i.e. violation of principles of natural justice as also non mentioning of period of suspension the order cannot withstand the legal scrutiny.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
