T LAXMA GOAD Vs. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT ADILABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the licensee of the Tandur group of toddy shops consisting of Tandur-I, Tandur- II and Gopalanagar for the excise year 1978-1979. He also established a toddy depot at Tandur after obtaining separate licence for the same. On 14th March, 1979 at about 9-30 A. M., the Excise Sub-Inspector, Enforcement, Warangal under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Warangal and Asst Commissioner of Excise, Enforcement, Twin Cities, raided the toddy depot at Tandur. One T. Ramulu, agent of the licenses was present in the depot. The toddy stored at the depot was tested with prescribed chemicals and it was found that it was mixed with Chloral Hydrate. Three samples of toddy Wire drawn from the stock kept for sale in accordance with the Rules under a Pancaanama and one of the three bottles was seat to the Chemical Examiner. Hyderabad, for analysis. One sample bottle was handed over to the Agent under acknowledgment and the other sample was sent to the Court. The Chemical Examiner after analysis reported that the sample of toddy seat to him by the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Warangal, was found adulterated with Chloral Hydrate. Thereby, the petitioner contravned rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Tapping of Trees and Toddy Shops Special Conditions) Rules, 1969. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30t i March, 1979 to show cause why the licence of the toddy depot of Tandur of toddy group Tandur for the year 1978-79 including the constituent shops viz., Tandur-I, Tandur-II and Gopalanagar, should not be cancelled under section 31 (1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the breach of the conditions of the licence. The petitioner in reply to the show cause notice stated that he never adulterated the toddy in his depot as alleged in the show cause notice and requested for an open enquiry into the allegations in the said show cause notice. The Superintendent of Excise by his order dated 25th April, 1979, alter consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner, cancelled the licence of the toddv depot of Tandur and the constituent toddy shops, viz., Tandur-I, Tandur-II and Gopalanagar, holding that the petitioner bad committed the offence of mixing Chloral Hydrate in the toddy. Re-auctioning of the toddy shops was also ordered as per rules. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner nas now filed this writ petition.

(2.) The first submission and formidable submission of the Lamed Counsel for the petitioner is that the sample of toddy found to have been adulterated was seized from the toddy depot at Tandur, that no samples were taken from the constituent toddy shops viz., Fandur-I, Tandur-II and Gopalanagar and that the cancellation of the licences of the said toddy shops under section 31 (2) is ia breach of the provisions of section 31 (2) of the Act. It is therefore necessary to read section 31 (2) of the Act:

(3.) The sub-section (2) of section 31 is essentially preventive in action and is intended for the protection of public health and safety. The foundation for action under the sub-section is the existence of an order of cancellation of licence of a person under clauses (a), (b) (c) or (d), of sub-section (1) of section 31. Such a subsisting order empowers the licencing authority with the jurisdiction to invoke the discretion to cancel the other licences under the subsection.