IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12638 of 2009 Between: M/s.Raju Traders rep.by its Prop S.K Meera Saheb S/o.Pitchaiah Saheb, age(30) Years D.No.2-338 Main Road,Kaikondaigudem,Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 THE PROHIBITION & EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT Khammam,Khammam District 2 THE ASST.EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT Khammam,Khammam District 3 The Proh.& Excise Inspector Khammam,Khammam District 4 The Deputy Superintendent of Police L&O,Khammam,Khammam District 5 The Circle Inspector of Police & L&O Khammam Rural Police Station,Khammam District 6 The Station House Officer Khammam Urban Police Station,Khammam District 7 The Station House Officer Khammam Rural Police Station,Khammam District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PALLE NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 7:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the alleged interference with its business in black jaggery and alum by the respondents. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he denied any interference with the petitioner’s sale of black jaggery and alum. In paragraphs 2 and 3, he averred as under: “In reply to the allegations made in para 4 of the petitioner’s affidavit, it is submitted that it is true that Black Jaggery is an agricultural produce. It is further submitted that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise has clarified with regard to the dealing of Black Jaggery and Alum and the same is followed by the Respondents in true spirit. However, there is no prior inspection of the petitioner’s shop and this respondent is not interfering with the petitioner’s business in Jaggery and the allegation made in Para 3 that the respondents are interfering with the day to day business of the petitioner is hereby denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. I submit that against the petitioner no crime is registered as on today and as such the relief sought in the writ petition is premature. In reply to the allegations made in para 5 of the petitioner’s affidavit, I submit that it is not true to say that the respondents are conducting frequent raids on the petitioner business as well as other branches and seizing the vehicles which are transporting the Black Jaggery and Alum with valid bills and way bills etc., along with the stock and causing disturbances of the business. It is pertinent to mention here that no specific instance was mentioned in the Affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ganesh Traders, reported in 2002(1) ALD 210, categorically held that the authorities can seize the Black Jaggery and Alum if it used as raw material for the manufacturing of illicitly distilled liquor. So far as the writ petition is concerned, Respondent have never raided on the business premises and not seized any Jaggery and Alum.” The stand of respondent No.1 is taken on record and the writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.16343 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th JULY, 2009. kvni