IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24076 of 2009 Between: Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society Uppal Kalan Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy District, rep. by its President ..... Petitioner AND The Proh.& Excise Superintendent Saroornagar, Govt. of A.P., Rangareddy District. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.Amarnath Goud Thodupunuri Counsel for the Respondent: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Cr.Nos.B1/2073/2009/1 and B1/2703/2009/2, dated 02-11-2009, issued by the respondent and also for a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for sending second sample to the independent laboratory i.e., State Food Laboratory. The petitioner is a Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society. An inspection of the toddy shops, bearing Licence Nos.226 & 227, of the petitioner- Society was made on 30-09-2009. The toddy samples were seized under a cover of Panchanama after the toddy was allegedly tested positive for diazepam. Thereafter, the said licenses were suspended pending enquiry. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the said orders of suspension and also the action of the respondents in not sending the second sample for analysis to an independent laboratory. This Court by interim order, dated 11-11-2009, granted stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of Circular No.B1/2703/2009/2, dated 02-11-2009, which pertains to shop No.1 only. This Court also, by a separate order, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation for sending the second sample to an independent laboratory and pass necessary orders. In the counter-affidavit, it is inter alia stated that in pursuance of the interim stay granted by this Court on 11-11-2009, shop No.1 is allowed to be continued. It is further stated that in compliance with the direction of this Court, the petitioner’s representation for sending the second sample to an independent laboratory was considered and the same was rejected as time barred vide proceedings in Cr.No.B1/2703/2009/1, dated 18- 11-2009. As regards the suspension of the petitioner’s licenses, it is not in dispute that the inspection was made in respect of shop No.2 only. That was the obvious reason why this Court has confined the interim order in respect of shop No.1 only while not interfering with the suspension of license in respect of shop No.2. In the light of these facts, I am of the opinion that there is no justification to suspend the petitioner’s license in respect of shop No.1, for which there was no inspection. Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent of suspension of petitioner’s license in respect of shop No.1 is set aside while not interfering with the order suspending the petitioner’s license in respect of shop No.2. With regard to the prayer for sending the second sample to the State Food Laboratory, as the request of the petitioner was rejected, subsequent to the filing of this Writ Petition and in pursuance of the direction given by this Court, and as the said order appears to have attained finality, no relief can be granted in this Writ Petition. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed to the extent of setting side the order of suspension of the petitioner’s license in respect of shop No.1 only. The respondent is directed to complete the enquiry, if not already done, and pass a final order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 14th June, 2011 lur