TODDY TAPPERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY MANGALHAT HYDERABAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE NAMPALLY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the decision of the 2nd respondent dated 17.9.2002 by two separate proceedings of the abovementioned date. The 2nd respondent in each of these writ petitions who is the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, suspended the licence of each of the petitioner-societies. The license to the petitioners were issued to these societies under the provisions of Excise Act to run a toddy shop each.

(2.) On 26.8.2002, officers of the Excise Department inspected the licensed premises of each of the petitioners herein and drew samples of the toddy that was offered for sale. In the counter-affidavits filed in these two writ petitions, it is stated that such inspection was conducted pursuant to the fact that it had come to the notice of the respondents that some of the licensees were selling adulterated toddy. Thereafter, criminal cases were registered against each of the petitioners as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the bottles of samples drawn from each of the societies were deposited with the concerned Magistrate's Courts having Jurisdiction over the licensee. Thereafter, the concerned Magistrates were requested to send one of the samples to the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (for short 'IICT'), Tarnaka, at Hyderabad and another to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories (for short 'APFSL'), Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad to find out by scientific analysis whether the samples contained any adulterants. In due course, the IICT reported that the samples contained an adulterant known as Alprazolam. In view of such reports, the 2nd respondent opined that there is a violation of Rule 5 of A.P.Excise (Tapping of Trees and Toddy Shops special conditions of Licences) Rules, 1969 and also Rule 11 of the A.P.Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 and the consumption of such adulterated toddy is injurious and dangerous to the health of the consumers. The 2nd respondent, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 31(1)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, passed orders keeping the licence of each of the petitioners herein under suspension pending further enquiry into the matter. Challenging the said orders, these two writ petitions are filed. There are two petitioners in each of the writ petitions, the first of them being a co-operative society which is the licensee and the 2nd petitioner in each of the writ petitions is a Member of the 1st petitioner society in each of the cases.

(3.) The impugned order in each of the cases indicates that the inspection dated 26.8.2002 was conducted by an officer other than the officers who had jurisdiction over the area in which the licensee was permitted to run the toddy shop. In fact, both the licensees are within the territorial jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent i.e., Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, whereas the inspection was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada and Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (Distilleries), Vijayawada, whereas in the 2nd case, it was Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (Enforcement), Kurnool who conducted the inspection. Both the impugned orders recite that such inspections were conducted by the abovementioned officers as per the directions of the 1st respondent i.e., Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh. These facts are relevant as one of the grounds on which the impugned orders were challenged is that that the searches themselves were illegal as they were conducted by the officers who are not authorised under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act or the Rules made thereunder and therefore all consequential action pursuant to such alleged illegal search is also illegal.