Mythili Education Society and Another vs Govt. of A.P. and Others

S.C. Pratap, C.J.—fey consent, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

The learned single Judge, by his order dated 10th June, 1991, in Writ Petition No. 7351 of 1991, directed the second respondent, Superintendent of Excise, Hyderabad to consider the representation (objections) dated 27th December, 1990, of the writ petitioners before considering the fifth respondent''s application for grant of F.L.17 licence and pass appropriate orders. Consequent thereupon, the Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad, has, on 29th February, 1992, passed a cryptic order to the effect that ".....the representation has been examined by the undersigned and that there are no valid grounds for non-grant of F.L.17 licence at the premises in question."

Hearing learned counsel on either side and considering the facts and circumstances and the above referred to order of the Excise Superintendent, we find that it is not a satisfactory order at all. Not a single reason has been given in support thereof. We understand that there was also no hearing given to the representationists- writ petitioners in these proceedings. When a representation is filed and when the authority is directed to consider it, the consideration must be disclosed and must be apparent on the face of the order. The Excise Superintendent''s order, in the instant case, contains merely the conclusion which, as indicated, is with no reasons in support thereof. It is, however, not necessary to pursue this aspect any further as learned Counsel on either side have now no objection to the matter being sent back for reconsideration after hearing the writ petitioners with a direction for a speaking order thereafter with reasons in support thereof.

Learned Counsel for the fifth respondent contends that in view of this Court proceedings the matter has been unduly delayed. He, therefore, requests for a direction to the authorities to consider and decide the matter expeditiously. We accept the said submission and direction accordingly is being issued in the final order below:

The learned Government Pleader submitted that the matter will have to be heard not by the Excise Superintendent but by the Commissioner of Excise. There is no dispute on this position. We would, therefore, direct the said officer to consider the representation, hear the parties and pass orders.

In the result, the following order is passed on this appeal:

(a) The order dated 29th February, 1992, of the Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad, at page 11 of the Material papers, is set aside;

(b) The proceedings are sent back to the Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad. He is directed to hear the parties, namely, the fifth respondent as also the writ appellant, in the matter of the latter''s representation/objections to the former''s application for grant of F.L.17 licence and thereafter pass an appropriate speaking order with reasons in support thereof; and

(c) In order to enable the Commissioner of Excise to do so expeditiously, we direct the writ appellants and the fifth respondent to appear before him on Wednesday, the 25th March, 1992, when he may, if so convenient, forthwith hear the parties or fix a date for such hearing. The proceedings should be disposed of expeditiously and, if any event, by 3rd April, 1992.

Order accordingly on the writ appeal which is thus disposed of. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications no longer survive and they also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Learned Government Pleader''s fee Rs. 300/-.