IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU * * * WP.No.21734 OF 2005 Between: Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society Karankote, Represented by its President, Mr.Chandraiah, s/o.Hanmaiah, Aged about 43 years, r/o. Karankote (v), Tandur Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. … Petitioner Versus The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Excise Station Tandur, Rangareddy district & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNNURI Counsel for the Respondents: GOVT. PLEADER for Excise O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the Proceedings dated 6-9-2005 passed in RC.No.C1/615/2005 by the second respondent in suspending the toddy shop licence of the petitioner-society even before the laboratory reports are received as illegal, arbitrary and also the action of the respondents in not sending one of the sample drawn in Cr.No.146/2005-06, dated 07-8-2005 by Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tandur to independent laboratory i.e., Institute of Preventive Medicine Public Health Food Laboratory and Food Administration, Hyderabad @ State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner-society contended that the Officer has no power to test the sample but it is only the Public Analyst, who is competent to analysis the sample. Hence, testing the toddy at the spot is not authorized by law. He further contended that under Rule 24 of the AP Excise Rules 1969 the remaining sample has not been forwarded to the independent laboratory. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition. The learned Govt.Pleader for Excise contended that under section 52 of the AP Excise Act, the Officer as prescribed by the State Government shall not below the rank of Inspector of Police can test the sample and therefore, when the Officer tested the sample and found the toddy was adulterated with Chloralhydrate, which is dangerous to the health of the consumers. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Excise. The suspension of the licence of the petitioner-society is only a substantive punishment pending enquiry. When the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Tandur, inspected the toddy shop of the petitioner-society on 7-8-2005 at about 01:30 p.m., he tested the toddy, prima facie, discloses that the toddy was adulterated with chloralhydrate. Therefore, samples have been drawn and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, since the toddy was adulterated, the licence of the petitioner has been suspended. Since the Officer, who inspected the premises in question has right to test the toddy under section 52 of the AP Excise Act, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent is right in suspending the licence of the petitioner-society, pending enquiry. In so far as not sending the second sample to the independent laboratory is concerned, the second respondent has to take appropriate decision in accordance with Rule 24 of the AP Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences, General Conditions) Rules 1969. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits, directing the second respondent to take appropriate decision to send the second sample to the independent laboratory in accordance with law. However, the second respondent shall complete the enquiry on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of Public Analyst report. With the above direction, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. OCTOBER 05th, 2005. -------------------- I s L. K.C. BHANU , J.