TODDY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY TUMMABOWLI VILLAGE SAROORNAGAR MANDAL R R DISTRICT Vs. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed by the Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies. The licences issued to the petitioners-societies were suspended by the competent authority, pending further enquiry into the allegation that the petitioners adulterated toddy that was being sold in their shops. However, after obtaining the chemical analysis report of the second sample bottle, the licensing authority issued proceedings revoking the suspension order. Therefore, the petitioners approached the authority for granting remission of the monthly rentals for the period during which the licences were suspended, in vain. Therefore, they filed the present writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondent to grant remission for the period during which their shops were not allowed to be operated due to suspension orders.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered by my learned brother Justice V. Eswaraiah, in Kallam Subba Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (1) ALD 282. In the said judgment his Lordship took a view that if the order of suspension is subsequently declared illegal and the authorities rectified the mistake, the licensee is entitled for refund/remission of the licence fee. Relevant observations made by his Lordship are as under: .. .In the instant case, no doubt, there is no such order of closure under Section 20 but the suspension order was found to be illegal by the licensing authority himself and revoked the suspension order. As the ground on which the suspension was made is subsequendy found as incorrect, and therefore, it cannot be said that the suspension order is legal As per the Scheme of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the licenses are granted for a period of 12 months on the payment of fixed amount of the rental and the licence fee relatable for the 12 mondis and if the licensing authority prevents the licensees from carrying on their business by reason of illegal suspension, suspending the privilege granted in favour of the individual to carry on the business and that privilege is restored by revoking the suspension orders, the licensee are entitled for the refund of the rental as well as the licence fee for the period during which the shops were remain closed on account of illegal suspension of the privilege granted in favour of the licensees. 14. Admittedly, there is no fault on the part of the licensees causing for the suspension of the licences but the suspension of licences were made purely on the fault committed by the Excise Authorities. For the fault of the Department, the licensees cannot be penalized. The authorities rectified their mistake and restored the licences but denied to grant the proportionate amounts payable for the suspension period, and therefore, I hold that the action of the respondents in refusing to grant remission of rentals and licence fee is illegal and contrary to Rule 33 of the Rules, 1993.

(3.) These writ petitions are vehemently opposed by the learned Government Pleader contending that, there is no provision in the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') or the A.P. 'Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 or the A.P. Excise (Tapping of Trees and Toddy shops-Special Conditions of Licence) Rules, 1969. She also placed reliance on the unreported judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No.15904 of 1994, dated 17.3.2005 in S.L.V. Wines v. State of A.P.