B SURESH GOUD Vs. COLLECTOR EXCISE MAHABOOBNAGAR DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the licensee of toddy shop of Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, Yanmannatva village for the year 1978-79. The Circle Inspector of Excise (Enforcement), Nalgonda made a surprise inspection of the toddy shop at 440 p.m. on 26-11-78. He tested the toddy exposed for sale with prescribed chemicals and found that it was adulterated with chloral hydrate. He therefore obtained samples of toddy from the said shop in accordance with the prescribed Rules and sent one sample to the Chemical Examiner, for analysis. Pending receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the licencing authority viz., the Excise Superintendent, Mahbubnagar district suspended the licence of the said shop on 18-12-78 under Section 31 (1) (b) of the A.P. Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the basis of the test conducted by the Circle inspector of Excise (Enforcement) on 26-11-78 and his opinion that the toddy found in the shop for sale was adultered. Suspension orders were served on the licensee on 21-12-1978. Subsequently the Chemical Examiner opined that the sample of toddy sent to him for analysis by the Circle Inspector- of Excise (Enforcement) Nalgonda on 26-11-78 was not found to be adulterated with Chloralhydrate by his report dated 18-12-78.' Therefore on 15-1-79 the order or suspension of the Excise Superintendent, Mahbubnagar dated 18 12-78. was revoked. On 21-1-79 the petitioner was served a notice informing him that he had failed to pay the rental of Rs. 3,020/- for the shop for January 1979 and asking him to show cause by 31-1-79 as to why the licences of the shop should not be suspended. The petitioner in his reply dated 5-2-1979 stated that the suspension of the licence of his shop on 18-12-78 was wholly unjustified as it was opinicd by the Chemical Examiner that the sample of toddy taken from bis shop was not adultereated, that the shop was re-opened after revocation of the order of suspension on 15-1-79 and that the Government was entitled io demand rental for January 1979. It was also stated that under Section 31 (3) of the Act he cannot claim any compensation or refund of any tee paid for the period of cancellation or suspension of the licence but that the Government have no right to demand the rental for the period of wrongful suspension of the licence. Since the Excise superintendent persisted is the demand for rental for January 1979 the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the demand notice dated 21-1-1979 demanding rental for the month of January 1979 in respect of the toddy shop.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the Excise Superintendent, Mahboobnagar, the demand is justified under section 31 (3) of the Act read with Rule 42 of tee A. P. (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the General Conditions Rules).

(3.) The simple question and the only question that arises in this case is whether the State Government have the legal right to demand rental for a toddy shop tor a period during which the licence was wrongfully suspended and the licencee was prevented from carrying on his business. Protection for the demand is taken under the provisions of Section 31 (3) of the Act and Rule 42 ot the General Conditions Rules. Section 31 (3) of the Act Reads :