ESWARIAH GOUD Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF PROBHITION AND EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks directions by way of mandamus to the 1st respondent to renew the licence granted to him under the Tree for Tappers Scheme vide Licence No. 693, Counter No. 2, in respect of the toddy shop situated in Sy.No. 42, Komsettypally Village, Marpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner was granted licence to sell toddy under TFT Scheme as per the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act') which was valid up to the end of the year 2002. On the ground that on 30.3.2002 an inspection was made by the Sub-Inspector of Excise and in the spot test conducted by him it is found that the toddy being sold by the petitioner is adulterated with chloral hydrate, a case vide COR No. 632/2001-02 dated 30.3.2002 under Section 37(a) of the Act was registered against the petitioner. When the licence of the petitioner was not renewed on the said ground, he approached this Court.

(2.) Pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, licence of the petitioner was renewed.

(3.) The 1st respondent herein has filed counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Vikarabad along with the staff and mediators conducted a raid on the licensed premises of the petitioner and the spot test conducted at the time of the raid revealed that the toddy is adulterated with chloral hydrate. However, in the counter-affidavit, it is not stated whether any proceedings for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner are initiated. In view of the fact that the licence of the petitioner is renewed even for the current season and as no order of cancellation of licence is passed based on the spot test, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his business on the licence, which is subsisting as on today. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking steps in accordance with law on receipt of the final report on the allegation of adulteration. No order as to costs.