Excise licence suspension pending enquiry may proceed without prior notice, but sample-intimation safeguards and second-sample rights remain protected.

Suspension of an excise licence pending enquiry was treated as an ancillary power available in public interest and not as punitive suspension or cancellation under Section 31, so prior notice or hearing was not required for that interim step. The challenge to suspension on the ground of absence of prior notice therefore failed. However, Rule 27(1) requires communication of sample drawal and preserves the licensee's right to seek second-sample analysis within time. As the record did not clearly establish such intimation, limited directions were issued to treat the suspension order as notice of sample drawal, receive any request for second-sample analysis, and complete the enquiry within 30 days.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the licence could be suspended pending enquiry without prior notice or hearing under Section 31(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. (ii) Whether the absence of communication regarding drawal of sample and the procedure under Rule 27(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licenses Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 required corrective directions.

Issue (i): Whether the licence could be suspended pending enquiry without prior notice or hearing under Section 31(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

Analysis: The power to place a licence under suspension pending enquiry was treated as a natural, ancillary and adjunct power to the grant of licence. Such suspension was distinguished from punitive suspension or cancellation under Section 31, which attracts the requirement of an opportunity of representation. On the facts, alleged adulteration of toddy was treated as a serious violation warranting immediate action in public interest, and the absence of prior notice was not accepted as rendering the suspension invalid.

Conclusion: The challenge to the suspension on the ground of absence of prior notice failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of communication regarding drawal of sample and the procedure under Rule 27(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licenses Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 required corrective directions.

Analysis: Rule 27(1) contemplates communication of the drawal of sample and preserves the licensee's right to seek analysis of a second sample within the prescribed time. Since the record did not clearly show that such intimation was given or that the nowkarnama holder was identified, the Court treated the suspension order as the practical notice of sample drawal and directed the authorities to receive any request for second-sample analysis. The enquiry was also required to be completed expeditiously to avoid undue prejudice.

Conclusion: The authorities were directed to accept a request for second-sample analysis and complete the enquiry within 30 days.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not allowed on merits, but the Court issued limited directions to safeguard the licensee's right to seek second-sample analysis and to ensure a prompt enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: Suspension of a licence pending enquiry is a distinct ancillary measure that may be adopted in public interest without prior notice, but the statutory safeguards relating to sample intimation and the licensee's right to seek second-sample analysis must be respected.

---