Prior hearing required before excise licence suspension when statute mandates representation and no enquiry has begun.

An excise licence suspension under Section 31(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 could not be sustained where no show-cause notice or opportunity of representation was given and no enquiry had been initiated. The proviso to Section 31(1) required a prior opportunity before cancellation or suspension, and Rule 66 operated within the same statutory scheme. Because the order proceeded on a concluded finding of wilful breach and malpractice rather than as a lawful interim step pending enquiry, it was invalid both as a provisional suspension and as a final punitive order. The authorities were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with the Act and Rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suspension of an excise licence under Section 31(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, expressed to be pending further investigation, was valid when no notice or opportunity of representation was given and no enquiry had been initiated.

Analysis: Section 31(1) empowers cancellation or suspension of a licence, but its proviso requires that the holder be given an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed action. The record showed that the order was made not as a mere interim administrative step in a pending enquiry, but on the footing that the licensee had already willfully violated licence conditions and indulged in malpractices under Section 36(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Rule 66 of the Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 also links suspension, cancellation or withdrawal to the statutory scheme under Sections 31 and 32 of the Act. No material showed that any enquiry under Section 31(1) had been initiated, nor that any show-cause notice had been issued. In these circumstances, the order could not be sustained either as a lawful interim suspension pending enquiry or as a final punitive order, because the statutory requirement of prior opportunity had not been complied with.

Conclusion: The suspension order was invalid and liable to be set aside for breach of the statutory proviso and denial of opportunity.

Final Conclusion: The licence suspension could not stand in law, though the authorities were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with the Act and the Rules before an officer not prejudged by the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a licensing statute requires an opportunity of representation before cancellation or suspension, an order that proceeds on a concluded finding of breach cannot be sustained unless that statutory hearing requirement is complied with.

---