DASARATH GOUD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in both the writ petitions is for a direction to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners' representations dated 6.7.2012/10.7.2012 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners seek a consequential direction to the respondents to renew their existing TFT licence (which was valid upto 30.9.2012) for a further block period of five years from 1.10.2012 to 30.9.2017. In their representation, the petitioners requested the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to renew their existing TFT licence which was valid upto 30.9.2012 for a further period of five years from 1.10.2012 to 30.9.2017. For the purpose of disposal of both these writ petitions, it would suffice if the facts in WP No. 21006 of 2012 are noted. The petitioner had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of WP No. 10475 of 2007 and this Court, by order in WPMP No. 13203 of 2007 dated 16.5.2007, had directed the respondents to renew the licence of the petitioners which would be subject to the result of the cases pending if any, and department lapses if any. Thereafter this Court, in its order dated 20.6.2012, noted that the period for renewal of the petitioner's licence from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2012 had already expired; the learned Government Pleader for the respondents was not in a position to state whether departmental proceedings, if any, were initiated against the petitioner; and, if so, what was the stage of the criminal case registered against the petitioner in COR No. 226/2006-07 dated 18.8.2006. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition, observed that no further orders were needed to be passed therein. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions on the ground that, for the block period from 1.10.2012 to 30.9.2017, their licences were not renewed.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein reference is made to two alleged violations committed by petitioner which were the subject-matter of Crime No. 631/2002-03 and COR No. 226/2006-07 dated 18.8.2006. Learned Government Pleader would contend that, it is only in view of the pendency of the earlier writ petition, no action could be taken against the petitioner; and that the respondents were ready and willing to consider the petitioners' applications for renewal of their licences in accordance with law; and it would suffice if this Court were to grant liberty to the respondents to initiate action against the petitioners for the offences committed by them earlier.

(3.) Sri B. Sai Ram Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would rely on Malliah v. The Superintendent of Excise, Rangareddy District,1988 1 ALT 603 and TCS Kosgi Group v. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, 1995 3 ALT 760, to contend that, as long as the petitioners satisfy the conditions prescribed for renewal of licence, neither the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, nor the Rules made thereunder, empower the respondents to refuse to renew the licence; and, as the respondents did not take any action on the petitioners' representations, a mandamus should be issued directing them to renew the petitioners' licences. On the question of action being taken against the petitioners, for the offences allegedly committed by them in the years 2005 and 2006, learned Counsel would refer to Rule 5(2)(c) of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 to contend that it is not open to the respondents to now take action against the petitioners in view of the period of limitation prescribed under the said rule.