TODDY CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LINGANNAPET VILLAGE GHANBHIRAOPET MANDAL KARIMANAGAR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Toddy Cooperative Society at Lingannapet Village, Ghambheeraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District is holding a licence for sale of toddy which is valid upto 30-9-2004. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar District, dated 28-6-2004 whereunder the licence of the petitioner Society has been suspended with immediate effect pending enquiry.

(2.) In the impugned proceedings, dated 28-6-2004, it is stated that on 10-1-2004 at about 5.30 p.m., the Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, AC Enforcement, Karimnagar inspected the petitioner Society and has drawn three samples of toddy under cover of panchnama. The said samples have been sent to Chemical Examiner, Warangal for analysis. As per the analysis report of the Chemical Examiner, Warangal, dated 31-5-2004, the toddy was found to be adulterated with Chloral Hydrate. Thus, the petitioner has contravened Rule 5 of A.P. Excise (Tapping of Trees and Toddy Shops Special Condition of Licence) Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules') by indulging in adulteration of toddy with Chloral Hydrate which is injurious to public health. Keeping in view the public health and safety and with a view to restrain the Lincensee from indulging in such practice, the licence has been suspended for contravention of licence conditions under Section 31(l)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act (for short, 'the Act') with immediate effect pending enquiry. Simultaneously, the petitioner was also served with a show-cause notice calling upon to explain why the licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner states that an explanation dated 19-7-2004 has already been submitted denying the allegation of adulteration of toddy and stating that the Excise Authorities never visited their shop. That apart, they also made a request for sending the second sample for analysis to an independent laboratory as per Rule 24 of the Rules as amended by G.O. Ms. No.880, Revenue (Ex-II) Department, dated 22-8-1992.

(3.) In this writ petition, various grounds have been raised contending that there was no inspection as such on 10-1-2004 and that the case was foisted against the petitioners only for statistical purpose. It is also contended that since their request for sending the second sample to an independent laboratory for analysis is still pending, the impugned proceedings are arbitrary and illegal. The further contention is that the impugned order of suspension without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the allegations, is contrary to law and violative of the principles of natural justice.