TODDY CO OP SOCIETY Vs. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13-10-2000 passed in W.P. No. 19382/2000 which was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to send the 2nd sample bottle to the independent laboratory and after receipt of the reports of the 1st and 2nd sample bottle take necessary action as per law. The petitioner also sought to declare (sic. suspend) the proceedings Cr.No. D3/395/2000/ ESH, dated 29-7-2000 of the 1st respondent-Prohibition and Excise Superintendent as confirmed by the 3rd respondent Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, suspending the licence of the writ petitioner.

(2.) For purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

(3.) The writ petitioner-Society consisting of 144 members was engaged in selling toddy under a licence granted by the Prohibition officials. The 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 29-7-2000 suspending the licence of the writ petitioner on the ground that on 27-07-2000 at 5.30 p.m. the Prohibition and Excise officials during cross (sic. crash) inspection programme, inspected the petitioner's shop and conducted a spot test of the toddy being sold and found that the toddy was adulterated with Chloral Hydrate which is injurious to health. The officials drawn three samples of the toddy under the cover of panchanama and seized the same and a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner-Society. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner-Society is that the society never indulged in selling adulterated toddy. The excise officials fabricated a case against the petitioner Society with no proof. According to the petitioner-Society, the 2nd respondent Excise Inspector inspected the shop without the Chemical Examner, who is the competent person to conduct the spot test. The 2nd respondent cannot decide whether the toddy is adulterated or not in the absence of the Chemical Examiner of the Excise Department. As such the opinion of the 2nd respondent is nothing but a presumption and an imaginary one without any basis. The respondents without the receipt of the 1st and 2nd respondents cannot straight away suspend the licence. The petitioner-Society requested the officials to send the 2nd sample to the independent lab named by it as he is entitled to seek such a relief under the provisions of the A.P.Excise Act. But the respondents instead of sending the 2nd sample to the independent laboratory, straightaway passed the impugned order which is contrary to the provisions of the said Act. Thus urging, the petitioner-Society sought the writ petition be allowed.