The main legal point established is that the mere filing of a criminal case against an individual cannot be the sole basis for rejecting their application for renewal of licenses, especially when their involvement in the alleged offense has not been proven.

S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are the licensees under the Tree for Tappers Scheme. The licences in their favour were valid till 30th September 1987. They have applied for renewal of their licences but the request was turned down on the ground that they were involved in adulteration cases and the shops were put to auction. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent in putting the shops bearing Nos. 1/3 and 2/3 of Pamena village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy district to auction.

( 2 ) THE Assistant Excise Superintendent filed the counter affidavit for the respondent inter alia stating that the petitioners were involved in cases of adulteration of toddy for which a case CR. No. 31/86-87 was booked and as per the excise Policy the petitioners are not entitled for the renewal of licences and their shops have to be put to auction.

( 3 ) SRI Narasimhacharya the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that they were unaware of any proceedings pending against them and that they are deprived of their right of renewal of licences The learned Government pleader on the contrary submits that a criminal case has been filed and the same is pending and as such the authorities are justified in refusing the renewal and putting the shops to auction. Respondent has relied upon para 1. 12 (b) of the Excise Policy for the year 1987-88 which reads :"1. 12 (b) : Whether Tree for tapper Schemes have come to adverse notice in 1986-87 or before and no new tree for Tapper Scheme is possible after removal of the member/members who indulged in adulteration, such shops should be put to auction"

( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that the policy mentions that if the Tree For Tappers scheme has come to adverse notice in 1986-87 or before and no new Tree for tapper Scheme is possible after removal of the member who has indulged in adulteration, such shops should be put to auction. But the said clause of the policy can only mean that where a tapper under tree for Tapper Scheme, is found to have indulged in an adulteration case and after excluding him to new Tree For Tapper scheme is possible then the shops should be put to auction From the averments in the counter affidavit it is clear that no action was taken against the petitioners for the alleged involvement in the adulteration cases except filinp a Criminal case. Though the alleged involvement is said to have taken place as long back as in february, 1987, when more than half of the Excise Year was yet to run, no steps were taken by the department to cancel the licence for the unexpired period Further in the Criminal case which is said to have been filed, the petitioners have not yet been found guilty. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that they were involved in the cases of adulteration as their involvement is not proved either in departmental proceedings or in Criminal proceeding before the Court It is but necessary that the tappers should he told specifically of their being found guilty by a competent Court in any Criminal proceedings launched against them or by depar tmental authorities in proceedings urder section 31 of the Excise Act for refusing the renewal of their licences under Tree for Tapper Scheme on the ground of their indulging in adulteration cases By mere filing a Criminal case against them it cannot be concluded that the petitioners have indulged in adulteration cases and their applications for the renewal cannot be rejected on that ground

( 5 ) IN this view of the matter the action of the respondent in cancelling the shop is held to be illegal.

( 6 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee rs. 250/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document