HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.12635 of 2004 Date: December 27, 2011 Between: M/s. Madhavi Bar and Restaurant, Hanamkonda, rep. by its Licencee J. Madhavi, W/o. Sarangapani, aged about 32 years, R/o. Excise Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal District … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: Petitioner has questioned the order dated 15.11.2003 passed in proceedings C.R.No.10748/2003/CPE/G1, by the 1st respondent, Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, A.P., Hyderabad. Petitioner is a licencee to run bar and restaurant and obtained licence in Form IL 17 as per the rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. On 09.07.2003, Prohibition & Excise officials, while conducting checking near Hasanparthy village intercepted an auto-trolley bearing Regn. No.AP.36.V.7039 and on verification found 12 cartons of IML and 20 cartons of beer. On interrogation, the driver of the vehicle confessed that the said stock was loaded at M/s. Gowda Wines, situated at Old Beet Bazar, Warangal. Thereupon, the vehicle was seized. During the course of investigation, the inspecting officers found excise adhesive labels affixed to the liquor bottles and found that the same were duty paid and supplied from A.P.B.C.L., Warangal in favour of the petitioner. In view of the same, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 for illegal transportation of IML and beer. Pursuant to registration of case, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for suspension of the licence under Section 31 of the Act. At that stage, petitioner submitted an application for compounding of the offence on payment of a compounding fee of Rs.1.00 lakh. Based on her application, the impugned order is passed by the 1st respondent for compounding the offence by levying a compounding fee of Rs.1.00 lakh. As against the said order, the petitioner appears to have carried the matter in revision before the Government and availed installment facility for payment of the compounding fee. In this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the impugned order, wherein the 1st respondent has directed the 2nd respondent to collect the compounding fee of Rs.1.00 lakh from the petitioner, on the ground that as per Section 47 of the Act, authorities are empowered to compound the offence by levying a compounding fee of only Rs.10,000/-, until the said provision is amended by Act 10 of 2005, i.e. from 02.04.2005 and levying the compounding fee of Rs.1.00 lakh is illegal and arbitrary. The Prohibition and Exicse Superintendent, Warangal, the 2nd respondent herein, has filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner. In this case, it is to be noticed that the allegation against the petitioner is that she has undertaken illegal transportation of liquor without valid permit; as such she has committed offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the Act. Though certain offences are compoundable under Section 47 of the Act, the offence under Section 34(a) of the Act is not compoundable. It appears, based on the application of the petitioner the impugned order is passed, whereupon she is allowed to continue her business as per the licence granted to her. Pursuant to registration of crime, when notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon explanation as to why her licence in Form IL 17 should not be cancelled, petitioner approached the respondents and filed an application for compounding the offence on payment of Rs.1.00 lakh. While it is true that at the relevant point of time, for the offences compoundable under Section 47 of the Act authorities are empowered to levy only Rs.10,000/- as compounding fee, but, at the same time, it is to be noticed that the crime registered against the petitioner is for the offence under Section 34(a) of the Act. Hence, the maximum limit of Rs.10,000/-, as contemplated under Section 47 of the Act, will not apply to the petitioner. In any event, having filed an application to compound the offence, based on which the impugned order has been passed, it is not open to the petitioner to question the same after continuing the business based on the licence, by avoiding further criminal proceedings in the matter. As much as it is stated that the petitioner has already paid the compounding fee by availing installment facility pursuant to the orders of the revisional authority, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) December 27, 2011 MRR