EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT Vs. E SAVARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE licences granted in favour of the respondents herein under the tree for tappers scheme were cancelled by the Excise Superintendent, Kurnool in his proceedings dt: 19-1-1994. Aggrieved by that order the respondents herein preferred appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kurnool. He dismissed the appeal by his order dt: 23-2-1994. THE order clearly reveals that he called for the remarks of the Excise Superintendent and referred to those remarks in the order itself. THE validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is questioned in W.P.No. 5235/94 out of which this writ appeal arises.

(2.) ON the ground that the appellate authority committed an error of law by referring to the remarks offered by the original authority viz., the Superintendent of Excise, Kurnool, the learned Judge set aside the order of the appellate authority. In view of the contentions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners the learned Judge had gone into the validity of the order passed by the Excise Superintendent and came to the conclusion that the order was not supported by any material. The show cause notice as well as the order passed by the Excise Superintendent reveal that the statement of the Driver was recorded in which, it is alleged that he admitted that the toddy was being illegally transported to the shop which was being run by Sri Subbanna who was not a licencee. But the alleged statement of the driver was not part of the record. It is fairly stated by the learned Government pleader that the statement of the driver was not recorded by the excise officials at the time of inspection, but his statement was referred to in the panchanama. It is an admitted fact that the statements of the panch witnesses were not recorded by the Excise Superintendent before passing the impugned order of cancellation. In those circumstances no reliance can be placed on the contents of the panchanama. Apart from that, the learned Judge had opined that the note book alleged to have been seized at the time of inspection was not made part of the record by the time the impugned order of cancellation was passed by the Excise Superintendent. In those circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.