THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19573 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.25709 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No.1951 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: TCS, Makthal is a Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society. All the members of the Society are tappers by profession. The society was granted TCS license in respect of Shop Nos.1 and 2 of Makthal Village and Mandal on 11.10.2007 valid upto 30.09.2012. On 12.01.2009 the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise (Enforcement), Warangal District along with staff surprised Shop No.1 and registered a case under Section 37-A of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 alleging that the toddy found in the shop was adulterated with Chloral Hydrate. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 04.08.2009 the TCS license of the society in respect of Shop No.1 was cancelled vide proceedings of the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Gadwal in exercise of powers conferred under Section 31 (1) (b) of A.P. Excise Act. Aggrieved by the same, the society filed W.P.No.19573 of 2009 seeking a declaration that the cancellation of licence is arbitrary and illegal. Challenging the very same order of cancellation dated 4.8.2009, some of the members of the society filed W.P.No.25709 of 2009 contending that in view of Rule 39 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.1228, dated 09.09.2007 even where the society had indulged in adulteration, if it is for the first time, the members of the Managing Committee alone shall be disqualified and removed from the membership and the society will continue with the eligible members by imposing a fine and therefore the impugned cancellation is unjustified and unwarranted. According to the petitioners, the members of the society are having surviving interest as per Rule 39 of the Rules and therefore the cancellation of the license is liable to be set aside. During the pendency of the above writ petitions, a fresh order dated 7.12.2009 came to be passed by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Gadwal, cancelling the TCS license of the society in respect of Shop No.2 on the ground that the samples of toddy drawn from Shop No.2 on 3.7.2009 were, on chemical analysis, found to be adulterated with Alprazolam which was injurious to public health. Aggrieved by the same, one of the members of the society by name G.K. Raju filed W.P.No.1951 of 2010. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the matters, they are heard together and decided by this common order. At the outset, it is to be noticed that it is the specific case of the petitioners that the old Managing Committee of the society was removed and a new Committee was elected from remaining members of the society by conducting General Body on 9.1.2010. It is also contended that by virtue of Rule 39 of the Rules the members of the society shall be permitted to run Shop Nos.1 and 2 by setting aside the impugned orders of cancellation. The material on record shows that the members of the society made a detailed representation dated 29.12.2009 requesting to permit them to run the shops in terms of Rule 39 and there is already a direction by this Court dated 12.1.2009 in WPMP.No.178 of 2010 to pass appropriate orders on the said application within one week. Hence it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion as to the claim made by the petitioners in W.P.No.25709 of 2009 and W.P.No.1951 of 2010 and suffice it to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the member dated 29.12.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, if not already passed, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. So far as the impugned orders of cancellation dated 4.8.2009 and 7.12.2009 are concerned, it is not in dispute that show-cause notices were issued and after considering the explanations and after conducting due enquiry the license of Shop Nos.1 & 2 were cancelled. Hence, if aggrieved, it is for the petitioners to work out the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 62 of A.P. Excise Act,1968. Without exhausting such alternative statutory remedy, the petitioners cannot maintain these writ petitions. Accordingly, it is left open to the petitioners to work out the alternative remedy of Statutory Appeal. With the above directions, all the three Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 09.03.2010 gbs