IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20629 of 2008 Between: Toddy Tapers Cooperative Society, (TCS) Lingampet, Nizamabad District, Rep by its President S. Eswar Goud, s/o. Naragoud aged 30 years ..... PETITIONER AND The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the orders issued by respondent in Rc.Nos. E2/320/2008; E2/06/2008; E2/07/2008; dt. 28-8-2008 received by the petitioner on 4-9-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 94/08 dt. 24-3-2008 and batch and violative of Principles of natural jutice and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20629 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the respondent dated 28.08.2008 thereby canceling the licence of the petitioner – society on the ground of adulteration of toddy with Chloral Hydrate as arbitrary and illegal. At the outset, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondent raised an objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that as against the impugned order, an eﬃcacious alternative remedy of appeal is available under the Statute. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the report of the independent analyst was not furnished to the petitioner inspite of the order of this Court in W.P.No.94 of 2008 and etc., dated 24.03.2008 and moreover no opportunity of personal hearing was given before passing the impugned order, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy the present Writ Petition can be maintained. It is clear from the order of this Court in W.P.No.94 of 2008 and etc., that the respondents were directed to furnish copy of the report of the independent analyst to the petitioner within two weeks and thereafter the petitioner has to file its explanation to the show cause notice. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the respondent to contradict the speciﬁc allegation made by the petitioner that the report of the independent analyst has not been furnished. In the circumstances the impugned order cannot be held to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Hence it is necessary to direct fresh enquiry after furnishing the report of the independent analyst to the petitioner in compliance with the order of this Court in W.P.No.94 of 2008 etc., dated 24.03.2008. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.08.2008 is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to furnish copies of the report of the independent analyst to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter the petitioner shall submit its explanation within a period of two weeks and after considering the same the respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No costs. ------------------- G. ROHINI, J. 24.09.2008 C.C. in 2 days B/o Kvsn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}