The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.29580 of 2011 Date: 10th November, 2011 Between: M/s.Kuldeep Wines (Gaz.Sl.No.82), Cherial, rep. by its Licensee Sri R.Srinivas ..... Petitioner and 1.The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Warangal District and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.R.Ashok, for Sri A.Ravinder Reddy Counsel for the respondents: GP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Order, dated 08-04-2011, of respondent No.1, as confirmed by Orders, dated 31-05-2011 and 26-09-2011, of respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively. I have heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, representing the respondents. The petitioner was an A4 licensee authorized to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor (for short ‘IMFL and FL’). On 01-01-2011, on reliable information, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, E.S.Task Force, Warangal, along with the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Cherial, raided premises bearing No.23-64/2 at Cherial, and found 69 cartons of Non- duty paid liquor, each containing 48 bottles of 180 ml labeled as Aristocrat Premium Whisky for sale to APSCI (AP) only affixed with fake Excise Adhesive Labels on the caps, and 5 cartons of Non-duty paid liquor, each containing 12 bottles of 750 ml labeled as Royal Stag Whisky for sale in AP only without affixing any Excise Adhesive Labels. The Inspecting Officers have found, in all, 525 cartons of Duty paid liquor of various brands in possession of Pothuganti Kishan, Son of Venkataiah. The Inspecting Officers have interrogated the said Kishan and also Gopagani Sridhar, Son of Murali and R.Balaraju, resident of Jangaon, who are licensees of M/s.Kuldeep Wines, Cherial, and M/s.Sri Sai Wines respectively. They, allegedly, confessed that they have purchased entire liquor, both Duty paid and Non-duty paid, from the petitioner’s shop. Accordingly, a Criminal Case was registered and proceedings for cancellation of the petitioner’s license were initiated. In reply to the show cause notice, dated 10-01-2011, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 24-02-2011. After a detailed consideration of the explanation, respondent No.1 passed an order vide proceedings bearing Rc.No.8/2011/P&E/A2, dated 08-04- 2011, whereby he has cancelled the license of the petitioner. The appeals filed by the petitioner, before respondent Nos.2 and 3, having been dismissed, he filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the order of cancellation is based mainly on the alleged confessional statement of Pothuganti Kishan and that there is no evidence, whatsoever, to show that the petitioner has sold the non-duty paid liquor seized from the custody of Pothuganti Kishan. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even if the duty paid liquor sold by the petitioner was found in unauthorised premises in the custody of the said Kishan, the petitioner cannot be penalised for the same. Opposing the above-submissions, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, representing the respondents, submitted that the circumstances, under which the liquor was seized from the unauthorised premises, have clinchingly established that the petitioner has indulged in illegal sale of non-duty paid liquor. The learned Government Pleader has drawn this Court’s attention to the detailed order passed by respondent No.1 and submitted that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not examine the reasons contained in the orders under challenge as an Appellate Court and that in the face of availability of strong evidence in support of the conclusions drawn by all the three hierarchical authorities that the petitioner has violated the license conditions by indulging in sale of non-duty paid liquor, no interference is called for. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. With reference to the Order, 08-04-2011, passed by respondent No.1, he has explained in detail as to how the seized stock is connected with the petitioner. It is stated, in the said order, that the duty paid liquor of 73 cartons of Officers Choice Whisky and 2 cartons of Aristocrat Premium Whisky of 750 ml, which was seized from the unauthorised premises, was verified with the transport permits supplied by AP Beverages Corporation Limited depot is covered by the transport permits issued to the petitioner by the said Corporation. Respondent No.1 has also relied upon the circumstance that all the three licencees viz., R.Balaraju of M/s.Gowda Wines, Bachannapet, Gopagani Sridhar of M/s.Sri Sai Wines and the petitioner have been placing indents for supply of liquor to their shops by drawing money from the common bank account No.70305000103 of ICICI bank, Jangaon, standing in the name of M/s.Sri Sai Wines. Respondent No.1 also found that the licensee of M/s.Sri Sai Wines i.e., Gopagani Sridhar has paid the license fee payable by the petitioner and the letter addressed by the Manager, Indian Overseas bank, A.S.Rao Nagar Branch, Hyderabad, to respondent No.1, is relied upon in this connection. Respondent No.1 also referred to the challans remitted towards license fee at State Bank of Hyderabad, Jangaon, through the transfer of amount from a single account. It is further found that Pothuganti Kishan is well connected with the petitioner as both of them have submitted demand drafts towards participation fee and EMDs, for which amounts were transferred from the single account No.70305000103 of ICICI Bank, Jangaon. The above circumstances, in my opinion, would clinchingly establish the link between the petitioner and the stocks, which were seized from the custody of Pothuganti Kishan. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the Duty paid liquor, which was seized from the unauthorised premises, belonged to him. The only explanation offered by the petitioner, in this connection, was that he would have sold the Duty paid liquor to his customers and that if the participants have indulged in illegalities, he cannot be held responsible. The petitioner has not produced any bills to show that a huge quantity of Duty paid liquor was sold in normal course of business. Under Rule 42 of the A.P. Excise (Lease of right to selling by shop and conditions of license) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’), for sale of liquor, the licensee shall issue bills to the customers. Even though the petitioner has produced a copy of the daily brand-wise account register, no evidence is placed before the Court to show that the statement of sales was filed before the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and the local Excise Inspector before 5th of each month as envisaged under Rule 49 of the Rules. In the face of the circumstances discussed above, which were considered by respondent No.1, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the order of cancellation was made only on the confessional statement of Pothuganti Kishan cannot be accepted. It is trite that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is concerned with the decision making process and not with the merits of the decision. No illegality or procedural irregularity is brought to the notice of this Court in respondent No.1 or the appellate authorities dealing with the case. On a consideration of relevant material, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have concurrently come to the conclusion that the petitioner has indulged in illegal sale of liquor and have, accordingly, cancelled the license. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by these authorities warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interim order, dated 05-11-2011, is vacated and WPMP.Nos.36635 and 36636 of 2011, are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 10th November, 2011 LUR