License Suspension Order Is Temporary; Can Never Partake Character Of Cancellation Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed a Writ Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Single Judge which dismissed a Petition.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that a License Suspension Order is temporary and can never partake the character of an Order of Cancellation.
The Court observed thus in a Writ Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Single Judge which dismissed a Petition.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held, “Since the order of suspension is only a temporary suspension of the arrangement between the licensor and the licensee, it could never partake the character of an order of cancellation and in the absence of an order of suspension prescribing a definite time period, the same, in our opinion, would make it unsustainable in law and to that extent only we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge.”
Brief Facts
The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Visakhapatnam by virtue of an Order, suspended the bar license of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of Sections 31 and 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (APEA) read with Rules 61 and 62 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of right of Selling by Bar, Grant and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2022. Preceding such an Order, a show-cause notice (SCN) was served upon the Appellant requiring her to show cause as to why the license issued in her favour be not suspended. As per SCN, the District Prohibition & Excise Officer (DPEO), Visakhapatnam had submitted a report stating that on a surprise check made at the Appellant’s Restaurant & Bar, it was found that the same was operating beyond the permitted business hours.
The Order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the Single Judge which held that the Suspension Order ought to have reflected the period during which it was to remain in operation and that the same could not take the effect of cancellation of the licence as suspension was temporary whereas cancellation was permanent. However, the Judge did not accept the Appellant’s contention that the principles of natural justice were violated. Hence, the case was before the Division Bench.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… it was not open for the learned single Judge to have directed the respondents to pass final orders prescribing the period during which the order of suspension would remain in force inasmuch as the period of suspension is neither covered by the provisions of the Act much less do the Rules deal with them. The period of suspension could, if at all, be passed pending an enquiry for cancellation of licence.”
The Court said that the Single Judge committed an error in law in not appreciating that the principles of natural justice had been violated inasmuch as not only was the relevant material not furnished to the Appellant before passing the impugned Order but even on the ground that the said Order was a non speaking Order and therefore, was required to be set aside.
The Court also reiterated that whenever an authority or a quasi-judicial authority passes an Order which has the effect of visiting a person with civil consequences, then the material that is sought to be relied upon by the authority is required to be disclosed, if it is otherwise relevant and has nexus to the action that is to be taken by the authority.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- Botta Lakshmi Pavani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (Case Number: Writ Appeal No: 812 of 2024)
