V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-Society sought for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ , Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents, in not sending second sample bottle of toddy drawn in PRNo. 280/97-98 dated 18-6-1998 of Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Karimnagar to an independent laboratory namely, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam and in suspending the licences of toddy shop Nos. 1 to 5 in respect of T. C. S. Karimnagar Group No. III under Section 31 (l) (b) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act (for short, the Act), as illegal, void and contrary to law.

( 2 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is staled by the President of the Petitioner-Society that the first respondent granted licences bearing Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 dated 1-2-1997 for five shops for a period of five years i. e. upto 30-9-2001 for retail sale of toddy and separate ration has been allotted for each toddy shop and all the shops have been distributed among various groups of members, who are managing the same. It is positively asserted by the President that the society has been carrying on the business strictly in conformity with the provisions of law and bye-laws of the Society and it never came to adverse notice of the Excise authorities.

( 3 ) WHILE so, there was an inspection in respect of toddy shop No. l bearing licence No. 19 by the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Karimnagar and samples of toddy were drawn in PRNo. 280/97-98 dated 18-6-1998 and it is alleged that the test conducted on the spot did not disclose any incriminating material. However, the authorities have been alleging that the petitioner-Society is selling adulterated toddy. Since there is an apprehension that the licence may be suspended, an application was made on 30-7-1998 requesting the respondents to send the second sample bottle to an independent laboratory i. e. State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad. A Demand Draft for the requisite fee for getting the second sample tested and analysed by the independent laboratory is also enclosed to the application. When the respondents refused to consider the above application the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. In the mean time, the respondents served a show-cause notice in Rc. No. 2560/98/pande/a7 dated 28-7-1998 to show cause as to why the licence of shop No. l be not cancelled under Section 31-B of the Act and in the same proceedings respondent No. 1 also suspended the licence of shop Nos. 2 to 5. Insofar as shop Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, it is asserted that no samples have been drawn from those shops and the impugned order has been passed without any notice and without providing any opportunity. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner also filed WPMP No. 26703 of 1998 seeking a direction to the respondents to send the second sample bottle to the independent laboratory namely State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad keeping in abeyance the proceedings in Rc. No. 2560/ 98/pande/a7 dated 28-7-1998 with a specific allegation that the first sample bottle said to have been sent to departmental laboratory is only a manipulation. This Court accordingly directed the second sample drawn in the impugned proceedings to an independent analyst if the petitioner had complied with the requirements of making an application and furnishing Demand Draft within the time etc.

( 4 ) THE petitioner also filed WPMP No. 27704 of 1998 seeking a direction to the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar, to send the second sample forthwith to the State Food Laboratory, Nacharam and not to take any further action of cancellation of licence till the receipt of report from the independent agency. By Order dated 17-8-1998 this Court once again directed the respondents to send the second sample taken from shop No. 1 to State Food Laboratory, Nacharam for report forthwith, and suspension of licence in respect of shop No. l from which samples were drawn alone would subsist and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document