TADLA LACHMAIAH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is from the judgment and decree of the First Additional Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the suit, brought by Tadla Lachmiah for a declaration that the Levy of fine and penalty by the Excise Department Officials, amounting to Rs. 11,713-9-0 is illegal and arbitrary and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from attaching and bringing the plaintiff's moveable and immoveable properties to sale for realisation of the said amount, was dismissed with costs.

(2.) There are as many as five defendants to the suit, defendant No. 5 being in abkari contractor.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these : The plaintiff-appellant Tadla Lachmaih and respondent No. 5 Narasimha Reddy, had jointly taken abkari contracts for sendhi and toddy trees in Ibrahimpatam group of villages for the year 1954-55 on a monthly rental of Rs. 3100/- in the public auction held by the Excise Department 3000 Sendhi and Taddi trees were allotted to the shops of the plaintiff and respondent No. 5. It is not in dispute that the entire contract amount of Rs. 37,200/- was paid. The dispute if any was in relation to tapping certain other taddi and sendhi trees which were not allotted to the plaintiff. On the allegation that several sendhi and tadi trees were illegally tapped without paying the trees tax, the Department instituted as many as 29 cases against the plaintiff. The Excise Superintend Hyderabad South, levied on him penalty in addition to the tree tax to the tune of Rs. 11,713.09 P. After a demand notice steps for collection of the said amount were started. The plaintiff's case is that the trees allotted to him are situated in several bans and private patta lands in which there are also trees allotted to other contractors. The bans thus are not in his exclusive possession. Not all most of the trees have been illegally tapped by him. Many of them must have been illegally tapped by others. The panchanamas as to illegal tapping were prepared behind his back and without notice to him by the subordinate officer of the Excise Department. On this material which was not true the Excise Superintendent without giving notice and giving and opportunity to meet the several charges made against him levied tree tax and penalty for illegal tapping. When the plaintiff came to know of the illegalities committed by the subordinate officials he moved the Superintendent for re-inquiry. The Excise Superintendent realised the force in his statement and referred the matter to the Circle Inspector for inquiry. But the Circle Inspector, instead of entering into an enquiry kept the file with him for several months and returned the same to the Excise Superintendent alleging that the plaintiff failed to submit him replies and therefore nothing to the plaintiff passed the order. Aggrieved by that order the plaintiff moved the Excise Minister for reinvestigation of the case. He filed and Application before the Collector requesting that his case should be re-investigated and he should be exonerated from all liabilities. Before that he appealed in vain to the Joint Secretary. The Collector directed that the plaintiff should pay ?th of the amount in the demand notice and then alone he would consider the case for granting facility to pay the balance in instalments. Aggrieved by that order he went in appeal to the Board of Revenue but the Board directed him to appeal to the concerned Excise Department authority against the order imposing the penalty. Thereupon he moved the High Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction but the High Court directed him to seek the ordinary remedy available to him. The plaintiff thereafter has instituted the suit with the prayer stated above.