IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4389 of 2009 Between: 1 E. Yellaiah Goud S/o. Chandraiah Goud TFT Licencee R/o. Kotepally Village, Peddamul Mandal, Rangareddy District. 2 Bandaiah Goud S/o. Ananthaiah Goud TFT Licencee R/o. Kotepally Village, Peddamul Mandal, Rangareddy District. 3 E. Gopi Goud S/o. Bheemaiah Goud TFT Licencee R/o. Kotepally Village, Peddamul Mandal, Rangareddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Rajendranagar, R.R. District, Governemnt of A.P., at Hyderabad. 2 The Proh. & Excise, SHO Tandur, Rangareddy District, Governemnt of A.P. 3 P. Mahender Reddy (Ex.MLA Tandur Constituency, R.R. District), R/o. Behind Tandur Bus Stand, Tandur, Rangareddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in registering COR.No.796/2008-09, dated 13.02.2009 and 801/208-09, dated 17.02.2009 of the 2nd respondent and action of the 1st respondent in not considering the representation dated 16.02.2009 and 02.03.2009 of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioners assert that they are the TFT licence holders in respect of Counter Nos.1, 2, 3 respectively vide Licence No.456 and selling toddy at Kotepally village, Peddamul Mandal, Rangareddy District. While so, the 2nd respondent registered a case in COR.No.796/2008-09, dated 13.2.2009 against some persons, including the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as accused Nos.A7 to A9, on the allegation that the 2nd respondent, while inspecting the agricultural lands of one Boya Kishtaiah in the village, seized some bottles containing toddy and found them to be adulterated and he also seized an Auto bearing No.AP28Y 6794, in which Diazepam was found. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent again registered a case in COR.No.801/2008-09 dated 17.02.2009 against the 2nd petitioner herein on the allegation that the toddy sold by him was adulterated with Chloral Hydrate. The petitioners state that they have nothing to do with the other accused and they never sold adulterated toddy in violation of either the licence conditions or the provisions under A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 (for short “The Rules”), and that the 2nd respondent, in collusion with the 3rd respondent, registered crimes against them. The 1st and 3rd petitioners made representation dated 16.02.2009 while the 2nd respondent made a representation dated 02.03.2009 to the 1st respondent requesting them to get the samples analyzed and also conduct an enquiry into the matter, but it is their grievance that the 1st respondent has not considered their representations, but is trying to take coercive steps against them. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the respondents Nos.1 and 2. Since the representations dated 16.02.2009 and 02.03.2009 said to have been filed by the petitioners are pending consideration before the 1st respondent, both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representations dated 16.02.2009 and 02.03.2009 said to have been made by the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 4th March, 2009 Note: Furnish copy in three days. B/o bcj