THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.94, 1815 & 5427 of 2008 Date: 24.03.2008 Between: Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, (TCS) Lingampet, Nizambad District. … Petitioner AND The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for respondent : G.P. for Prohibition & Excise HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.94, 1815 and 5427 of 2008 COMMON ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a Toddy Tappers’ Co-operative Society. On 15.12.2007 the respondent issued show-cause notice for suspension of TCS licence on the basis of an inspection conducted on 14.12.2007 during which samples of toddy were taken and spot test was conducted. On 17.12.2002 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent to send one of the three sample bottles for independent analysis. On 21.12.2007, the respondent issued notice to the petitioner to show-cause why the managing committee of the petitioner shall not be suspended. The petitioner filed W.P.No.94 of 2008 questioning the said two proceedings. This Court granted stay of further proceedings on 4.1.2008. While the said writ petition was pending, another inspection of the petitioner’s toddy shop was made on 17.1.2008 and samples were seized apart from conducting spot test. By order dated 18.1.2008 the petitioner’s licence was suspended. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1815 of 2008. By order dated 1.2.2008, this Court suspended the said order. When both the said writ petitions were pending the respondent conducted another inspection on 18.2.2008 and on the basis of the samples seized and the spot test conducted, the petitioner’s licence was suspended on 26.2.2008. Against the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5427 of 2008. This Court by order dated 13.3.2008 granted interim stay. The respondent filed counter affidavit and vacate stay applications in W.P.Nos.94 and 1815 of 2008. Sri Kowturi Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondent in subjecting the petitioner to repeated inspections and suspension of licences is actuated by extraneous considerations. He alleged that on account of influence exerted by certain disgruntled people, the petitioner is subjected to hostile treatment. He contended that under Rule 27 of the A.P.Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence, and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 (for short “the Rules”), the petitioner is entitled to make request for sending of second sample for analysis by an independent laboratory and that the fact that in the face of the representations made by the petitioner for sending the sample for such analysis, the action of the respondent in suspending the licence of the petitioner shows lack of bonafides on his part and that the same is illegal. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submitted that under Rule 27(5) of the Rules, the respondent is empowered to conduct spot test and since the spot test made on all the three occasions revealed adulteration of toddy, the respondent gave show cause notice in the first instance and suspended the petitioner’s licence on the later two occasions. The learned Government Pleader relied upon Section 31 of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and submitted that the power of suspension or cancellation as substantive punishment includes the power of the licencing authority to suspend the licence as an interim measure because the licencing authority has such power as incident or ancillary to the main power as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Tappers Co-Operative Society, Maddur Vs. Superintendent of Excise, Mahboobnagar[1]. He submitted that since the spot test revealed the adulteration of toddy by the petitioner, the respondent suspended the petitioner’s licenses in public interest. In view of the fact that the enquiry is pending before the respondent, I am not inclined to express my opinion on the merits of the cases. Undoubtedly adulteration of toddy causes grave harm to the health of the public and wherever such incident takes place, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to take stern action. But, at the same time, the respondent shall act with fairness and transparency and the person against whom the action is proposed to be taken shall be given a reasonable opportunity before resorting to serious action to either suspend or cancel the licence. Though the respondent in the first instance, namely, on 15.12.2007 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to explain why its licence shall not be suspended, on the next two occasions he has straightaway suspended the licence on the basis of the subsequent inspections. While the petitioner asserts that the series of inspections undertaken by the departmental officials was attributable to certain vested interests acting behind them, the respondent however, denies the same. Irrespective of whether the action of the respondent in conducting inspections and drawing samples was on account of the external pressures or not, if it is eventually found that the petitioner indulged in the acts of adulteration, the respondent is entitled to take action against the petitioner in law. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the reports, in respect of the three samples sent for independent analysis at the instance of the petitioner are still awaited. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that this Court has already suspended the orders of suspension of petitioner’s licence in these writ petitions, I am inclined to dispose of these writ petitions without going into the merits of the case, in the following terms: 1) The respondent shall take steps to get the second sample sent for independent analysis, analysed as early as possible. 2) The respondent shall furnish copies of the report of independent analyst to the petitioner and within two weeks there from, the petitioner shall file its explanation to the notices issued by the respondent. 3) Immediately on receipt of the explanations, the respondent shall conduct necessary enquiries after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and dispose of the same; and 4) Till the completion of the above-mentioned process, the petitioner shall be permitted to run the toddy shops covered by the TCS Licence. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, W.P.M.P.Nos.101, 2267, and 7030 of 2008 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief are dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:24.03.2008 mdaa [1] 1984 (2) APLF Reports P-1