THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.6870 of 2009 Dated 20th April, 2011 Between: M/s.Sri Sai Shakthi Kirana & General Stores …Petitioner And The Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Station, Kothagudem, Khammam District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Mallesham For Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a trader in jaggery and other general provisions. It is its pleaded case that during the course of its business, it purchases and sells black jaggery and alum to its customers, that there is no prohibition on sale of black jaggery and that the respondents have been unduly interfering with its business by making false allegation that it is selling black jaggery for manufacture of illicitly distilled (ID) liquor. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia averred that while mere possession of black jaggery and alum does not constitute an offence punishable under A.P.Excise Act, 1968 or the IPC, it is alleged that the petitioner is dealing with the black jaggery exclusively for manufacture of ID liquor. It is further averred that recently there has been uproar in the public on the business activity of selling black jaggery in the name of jaggery and alum for the illicit distillation of liquor and in connection therewith, the Collector and District Magistrate issued instructions to put an end to this menace. In para-8 of the counter affidavit, statistics have been furnished on the number of cases of manufacture of ID liquor. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that the petitioner is indulging in the business of purchase and sale of black jaggery and alum without any bills, that the respondents have not been interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner and that whenever information is received from various sources complaining that the petitioner is indulging in the sale of black jaggery and alum in combination for the purpose of manufacturing ID liquor, they have been inspecting the petitioner’s business premises in order to find out whether it is indulging in illicit activity. In my opinion, while the petitioner is not entitled to sell black jaggery for the purpose of manufacture of ID liquor, at the same, the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner’s business on mere suspicion without proper proof of the alleged illegal activity by the petitioner. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents that only on credible information, inspections are being made of the petitioner’s business premises and that they are not interfering with the day-to-day lawful business of the petitioner, the same is placed on record and the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.8982 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.2230 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th April, 2011 VGB