D SHIV KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal by the petitioner, a toddy contractor, is directed against the order of our learned brother Chennakesav Reddy, J.. dismissing his writ petition to quash the order of the Superintendent of Excise, Raogareddy District dated 7-2-1979 wbereunder his licence for the toddy shop tor the remaining lease period has been cancelled.

(2.) On 29 11-1978 the appellant shop was raided by the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Gandipeta range and sample of toddy drawn from his shop in his presence was/sent for chemical analysis to the Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner or analysis indicates that the sample sent from the petitioner's shop was fermented toddy mixed with chloralnydrate. Hence a show cause notice as to why tne petitioner's licence for sale of toddy should not be cancelled for the rest ot the period tor violating Sec. 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Excises Act read with Rule 5 ot the Andhra Pradesh (Tapping of Trees and Toddy shop Special condition of Lincences) Rules, 1969, was issued on 16-1-1979 to the appellant by tne 2nd respondent, herein. The notice was served on the appellant on 24-1-1979. He was called upon to make his representation witnin seven days from the date of receipt ot the show cause notice, The time for sending explanation expired by 31-1-1979 It was only on 2-2-1979 the appellant made a request to the Superiniendent of Excise (2nd respondent) to extension of time for submitting his explanation by another fifteen days on the ground that he was unwell. Tne Excise Superintendent did not accede to tne request ot the appellant and passed the impugned order on 7-2-1979. The impugned order indicates that the application for extension of time was rejected and the licence of the toddy shop, Lingampally granted to the appellant was cancelled undet Sec. 31 (1) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 for the rest of the lease period as the licensee has contravened the provisions of sec. 37 ot the A.P. Excise Act by adultering toddy with chloral hydrate.

(3.) An appeal was preferred by the appellant to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Andhra Pradesh (1st respondent) on 16-2-1979 and he also prayed for stay of operation of tpe order of the Superintendent of Excise cancelling his licence. The appellate authority rejected the stay petition. Thereafter on February 21,1979 the present writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the Excise Superintendent and for a direction to send the sample kept in the appellant's shop by the Sub-Inspector, Gandipeta range on 29-11-1978 for chemical analysis to the Chemical Examiner.