IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25410 of 2007 Between: Balaji & Company, rep., by its Proprietor Ganji Ramulu & others. … Petitioners AND The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri V. Praveen Kumar for Sri Palle Nageswar Rao Counsel for respondents 1to3: AGP for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondents 4&5: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25410 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in harassing the petitioners by interfering with their business in Black Jaggery and Alum being carried on under valid licences and also seizing the said Jaggery and Alum in spite of producing way bills, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with their business or seize the stocks of black jaggery and alum. The petitioners claim to be the residents of Siddipet Town of Medak District and carrying on business in black jaggery and alum under certificates of registration issued by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Siddipet. They averred that they have been purchasing black jaggery and alum under proper bills from places like Chittoor, Anakapalli, Nizamabad and other districts and selling the same to various customers under valid bills, that this Court by order dated 13.08.2007 in WP.No.18378 of 2007 directed the respondents not to interfere with the purchase and sale of black jaggery and alum under proper bills and following the same, respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 22.12.2001 directing his subordinates not to harass the people, who are doing the business in black jaggery, if the same is purchased and sold under valid bills, way bills and permits issued by the market committees. The petitioners alleged that the respondents have been conducting frequent raids on their business premises and godowns and seizing the vehicles transporting the black jaggery and alum apart from holding out illegal threats to the petitioners. Heard Sri V. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise and perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that following the judgments of this Court, respondent No.1 issued a detailed circular dated 22.12.2001, wherein it is mentioned as under: “In this connection it is informed that it is never the intention of the Government to cause any inconvenience, much less harassment, to any person who deals in jaggery or black jaggery used for lawful purposes. The Hon’ble Hich Court’s order cannot be interpreted to impose a complete ban on production or possession of black jaggery. Since black jaggery is a bio-produce of the jaggery industry, in would be produced as a waste residue whenever jaggery is produced. The Prohibition and Excise Department is mandated to seize and confiscate only such material, including black jaggery which is used to likely to be used for the purpose of illicit distillation of country liquor. The High Court has stressed that ‘if it is reasonably believed’ that the black jaggery is kept for manufacturing I.D. Liquor then the authorities can register a case under Section 34 (e) of the A.P. Excise Act. The words “reasonably believed” have to be viewed in the totality of the circumstances prevailing in a particular transaction involving black jaggery. If the circumstances clearly point out to the fact that the black jaggery is meant for use in illicit distillation then it will be liable for seizure and confiscation. One such circumstance may be the case of transportation of reasonably large quantities of black jaggery without the support of way bills and permits issued by the market committees and evidence of purchase through a bill/purchase receipt etc. Similarly black jaggery stored in premises/place, which is used for illicit distillation of liquor, or along with large quantities of I.D. Liquor could lead to a reasonable belief of its misuse. In view of the above, it is clarified that all the consignments of black jaggery which are covered by way bills permits issued by the market committees and where purchase documents clearly indicate the name and address of the consignor and the consignee etc, should not prima facie be made liable for seizure as in all such cases the Excise officials can always enquire about the end use of black jaggery. All the excise authorities are therefore instructed not to cause any undue harassment whatsoever in respect of genuine trade transactions of black jaggery covered by valid permits.” The above-reproduced circular shows that the Excise department is conscious of the rulings of this Court, wherein it was held that unless the black jaggery is found used in manufacture of illicitly distilled liquor, the business in the said commodity shall not be interfered with by the excise department. Specific instructions are therefore issued by respondent No.1 not to cause any undue harassment whatsoever in respect of genuine trade transactions of black jaggery covered by valid permits. In their affidavit, the petitioners have not given any specific instances of alleged raids conducted and neither the names of the officers, who conducted such raids nor the names of the petitioners against whose business the raids were conducted have been given. Unless the petitioners are able to show that the action of the respondents either violates the orders of this Court or the abovementioned circular issued by respondent No.1, it is not possible for this Court to grant an omnibus direction to the respondents not to interfere with the business activities of the petitioners. If in a given case, the subordinates of respondent No.1 conducted raids despite the petitioners holding valid permits and way bills and in the absence of any evidence to show that black jaggery or alum are meant for being used in the manufacture of illicitly distilled liquor, such an action will be declared as illegal. The petitioners miserably failed in bringing out any such instances of illegal seizures or interference by the subordinates of respondent No.1. Therefore this writ petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.33121 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.03.2008 ES