IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 24075 of 2009 Between: K.Manikyappa Goud ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Prohibition and Excise Department, Mahabubnagar District and 2 others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 24075 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the President of Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society, Kodangal, and the said society is having three toddy shops. The Prohibition and Excise officials inspected shop Nos.2 and 3 and seized the entire toddy on the ground that the said toddy is adulterated with Cholral Hydrate. However, in the sample test, the sample taken from shop No.3 is found free from Chloral Hydrate. But the respondents-officials registered cases against the petitioner-society. Later, the 1st respondent-Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Mahabubnagar District, suspended the petitioner’s licences relating to the shop Nos.2 and 3. After receipt of the analyst report etc. and after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation, the 1st respondent vide his proceedings, dated 19-06-2009, cancelled the said licences issued in favour of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar, but, however, the appeal was dismissed by the said authority by proceedings dated 14-07-2009, and thereafter, the petitioner filed revision before the 3rd respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. As no orders have been passed, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that out of the two shops, which were inspected, only in shop No.2, they found adulteration with Chloral Hydrate. But so far as shop No.3 is concerned, there is no finding that the toddy is adulterated with Chloral Hydrate and as such, the petitioner may be permitted to carry on business at least in shop No.3 during pendency of the revision before the 3rd respondent. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has drawn my attention to the orders impugned and submitted that though at the time of inspection, the toddy is not adulterated with Chloral Hydrate in shop No.3, but, however, as per the report of the analyst, the same is adulterated with Alprozolam and Saccharin. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. This Court is not inclined to express any view on the merits of the case as canvassed by the learned counsel on either side for the reason that it may adversely affect the interest of the parties. However, as the revision preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the said revision, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ November 10, 2009 Kvr