MADDURU OBULAPATHI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed by the Plaintiff against the Judgment and decree dated 30-7-1986 in O.S. No.55 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Proddatur, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE facts set out in the plaint are briefly narrated as under: THE plaintiff was a L2 licensee granted by the 2nd defendant on 19-7-1972 for the purpose of pharmacy that was being run by him under the name and style of Krishna Ayurveda Pharmacy at Proddatur town, Cuddapah district, engaging in manufacture of Drakshasava and Draksharista, initially for a period of one year after having been satisfied that he had complied with all required conditions contemplated under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Rules'). THE licence of the plaintiff was being renewed from year to year till 1976 and he had also applied for renewal of licence for the year 1976-77. THE Sub- Inspector of Excise, Proddatur, by his report dated 20-3-1976 recommended for the renewal of the licence of the plaintiff stating that he inspected the pharmacy on 20-3-1976 and that the preparations were in accordance with the Board's Formula and the samples sent to Kurnool for chemical examinations, weTe proved correct and they were passed in Crime No.510/75 LAB-Ex., dated 6-10-1975 of chemical examiner, Kurnool. THE 3rd defendant herein by his proceedings dated 19-4-1976 directed the Circle Inspector of Excise and Sub-Inspector of Excise, Proddatur not to release the stocks i.e., 400 litres of Drakshasava and further directed to seal the stocks until further orders. In pursuance of the proceedings of the 3rd defendant, the Excise Sub-Inspector, Proddutur, seized the entire stock of 400 litres of Drakshasava, closed the pharmacy and the plant on 6-5-1976 and the key was taken away by him and thereafter the plaintiff had no access to the same nor stocks were released to the plaintiff by the defendants from that date. THE same was also intimated by the Excise Sub-Inspector, Proddatur to the 3rd defendant by his letter dated 6-5-1976. THE plaintiff addressed several letters dated 3-1-1977, 16-1-1977 and also on 25-7-1977 requesting the 2nd defendant to renew his licence for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78, as non-renewal of licence of the plaintiff is getting loss and if the licence is not renewed the plaintiff will have no other alternative except to proceed legally and to get the amounts from the Excise Department for the loss occurred to the plaintiff. THE 2nd defendant issued a show cause notice dated 30-12-1977 to the plaintiff alleging that the Assistant Commissioner of Excise (Enforcement), Cuddapah, inspected the pharmacy of the plaintiff on 24-2-1977 and noticed that the manufacturing room does not conform to M & T (E.D.) Act and Rules, and that 400 bulk litres of Drakshasava was shown in the stock register, but on verification 320 bulk litres was found short and the remaining 80 bulk litres was colourless aromatic liquid without alcohol smell containing in five cans, and demanding the plaintiff to pay Rs.11,537-50 paise towards the excise duty within 15 days, failing which the licence should be cancelled under Rule 87 of the Rules. THE plaintiff submitted his explanation on 6-3-1978 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. THE 3rd defendant without even giving an opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff passed orders dated 21-12-1979 cancelling the licence of the plaintiff and directed the plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs.11.537.50 paise towards the differential duty, without referring to any of the submissions made by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the 3rd defendant, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which was dismissed by orders dated 22-6-1984 vide Memo No.30/E2/84-2 without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff or being heard on flimsy and whimsical grounds in an illegal manner and directed the Commissioner of Excise to recover an amount of Rs.11,537-50 paise towards the differential duty. THE defendants by their inordinate delay without taking proper action have allowed 400 litres of Drakshasava to get deteriorated. THErefore, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration that the orders of cancellation of the licence in his favour is illegal; for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to renew the L2 licence of the plaintiff for the previous years and current year and for future years subject to the rules and conditions; declaration that the orders of the defendants regarding levy and collection of Rs.11,537-50 paise as illegal; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their employees from collecting the said amount from the plaintiff and to direct the defendants to pay Rs.20,000.00 towards damages with future interest at 12% per annum.

(3.) IN view of the respective pleadings, the Court below framed as many as five issues. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.I was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.I was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked.