1984 (3) TMI 433 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a licence issued under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 can be suspended pending enquiry under Section 31 of the Act.
2. The applicability of the principles of natural justice in the suspension of licences pending enquiry.
3. The incidental or ancillary powers of the licensing authority under the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Suspension of Licence Pending Enquiry:
The primary issue was whether a licence issued under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, could be suspended pending an enquiry into allegations of contraventions of the conditions of the licence. The court examined the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 31, which deals with the power to cancel or suspend licences. The court noted that Section 31 allows for the suspension or cancellation of a licence upon proof of contravention of the conditions of the licence, but it does not expressly provide for suspension pending enquiry. The court held that there is no specific provision in the Act or the Rules authorizing the suspension of a licence pending enquiry. It was argued that such power must be implied as an incidental or ancillary power; however, the court concluded that the power to suspend a licence pending enquiry could not have been intended by Section 31, which requires proof of contravention for suspension or cancellation.

2. Applicability of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized the importance of natural justice, stating that the suspension of a licence pending enquiry without notice and an opportunity to be heard would violate the principles of natural justice. The court observed that the consequences of suspension, whether pending enquiry or as a final order, are the same: the licensee loses the right to carry on business and suffers financial loss. The court held that the power to suspend a licence pending enquiry could not be assumed, as it would deprive the licensee of a valuable right acquired by paying consideration, on mere allegations without proof.

3. Incidental or Ancillary Powers:
The court considered whether the licensing authority has incidental or ancillary powers to suspend a licence pending enquiry. It referred to previous judgments, including those dealing with the Essential Commodities Act, which allowed for suspension pending enquiry as an incidental power. However, the court distinguished these cases by noting that licences under the Essential Commodities Act are not issued for consideration and are intended to regulate essential commodities, unlike licences under the Excise Act, which are issued for valuable consideration and deal with intoxicants. The court concluded that the incidental or ancillary power to suspend a licence pending enquiry does not exist under the Excise Act.

Separate Judgments:
The judgment included separate opinions from different judges. The Chief Justice, K. Madhava Reddy, emphasized the absence of specific provisions for suspension pending enquiry and the importance of natural justice. The majority opinion, delivered by P. Kodandaramayya, J., on behalf of himself and Lakshmana Rao, J., held that the licensing authority has incidental and ancillary powers to suspend a licence pending enquiry in urgent cases, considering factors such as public danger and the need for immediate action.

Conclusion:
The court held that a licence issued under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, cannot be suspended pending enquiry under Section 31 of the Act unless there is proof of contravention of the conditions of the licence. The principles of natural justice must be observed, and the incidental or ancillary power to suspend a licence pending enquiry does not exist under the Act. The writ petitions challenging the suspension of licences pending enquiry were allowed, and the impugned orders of suspension were quashed. However, the majority opinion allowed for incidental and ancillary powers of suspension in urgent cases, provided the action is justified and reasonable.