THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN (DATED 12-07-2013) PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP No.23079 OF 2010 Between: TCS Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District rep. By its Chairman ….Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Hyderabad and others ... Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP No.23079 OF 2010 ORDER:: In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges i) the proceedings in Rc.No.B3/193/2009 dt. 26-08-2010 of 3rd respondent cancelling the licence of toddy shop No.9, bearing No.9, dt. 1-10-2007 and toddy depot bearing No.1/2007 dt. 3- 10-2007 granted to the petitioner; and ii) consequential proceedings in Rc.No.B3/193/2009 dt. 14-09-2010 of 3rd respondent cancelling licences bearing Nos.1 to 8 and 10 to 13, 33, 34, 57 and 62/2007 dt 01-10-2007 granted to the petitioner. 2. In respect of toddy shop No.1, 2 & 4 for which licences were given to the petitioner, samples were drawn on 13-11- 2007. They were sent for analysis to the Government Regional Chemical Laboratory of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Vide report dt. 24-11-2007 the said Laboratory reported that the samples sent were fermented toddy adulterated with Alphrazolam. This is the first adulterated case booked against the petitioner after 1-10-2007 under Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of licence to sell toddy, conditions of licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007. 3. Likewise, from the toddy shop no.9 of the petitioner also on 11-08-2009 samples were drawn and sent for analysis to the above Laboratory. Similar report was submitted by the said Laboratory vide report dt. 26-08-2009. As such two adulterated cases came to be booked against the petitioner under the above Rules. 4. On the basis of the above reports, straightaway licences of the 17 shops of the petitioner and the depot were cancelled vide Proceedings No.B3/193/2009 dt. 22-09-2009 and 3-10- 2009 by 3rd respondent. 5. This was challenged in WP No.21745 of 2009 by petitioner contending that the said action was in violation of principles of natural justice. The Government Pleader representing the respondents conceded that there was such violation and agreed for setting aside the impugned proceedings dt. 22-09-2009 and 3-10-2009 and for passing of fresh orders. By order dated 12-04-2010, the said writ petition was allowed recording the said concession and liberty was given to 3rd respondent to pass orders afresh after giving show cause notice to petitioner and after considering the material, if any, filed by it. 6. Thereafter on 07-08-2010 a show cause notice was issued to petitioner setting out the grounds for cancellation of the licences issued to the above shops and depot. Chairman, PIC Committee of the petitioner-Society submitted his explanation dt 19-08-2010. 7. Thereafter impugned orders were passed on 26-08-2010 and 14-09-2010 cancelling the licences of toddy shop No.9, toddy depot bearing No.1/2007 and toddy shops bearing Nos.1 to 8 & 10 to 13, 33, 34, 57 and 62 of 2007, respectively. 8. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Ramchander Goud and the Government Pleader for the respondents. 9. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that as per proviso to Rule 39 of the Rules, unless the adulteration is found in the premises of the same shop or depot on more than one occasion, licences are not liable to be cancelled. As admittedly, the adulteration was discovered by respondents in different shops and depot on different occasions and not in the same shop or depot, he prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. 10. Per contra, Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that depot is the place were toddy is stored and toddy supplied from the said depot is actually sold in various shops for which licences are granted to the petitioner. He contended that licence is granted under the above Rules in respect of right to sell toddy through different shops and the licence to the depot is also issued under the same Rules. He submitted that it is not necessary that adulteration be discovered twice in respect of the same shop/depot to enable the respondents to cancel the licence for the said shop/depot. He contended that the Rules contemplate grant of licences to sell toddy to the licencees and if adulteration is detected twice in the shops/depot belonging to a licencee, they are liable to be cancelled under second proviso to Rule 39 of the above Rules. 11. I have noted the submissions of the respective parties in separate para. 12. Rule 39 of the Rules reads as under:- “39. Cancellation of Licence:- In case of cancellation of licence for default of payment of any dues, the order of cancellation of licence of the shop(s) may be revoked by the Collector after satisfying himself that the defaulter has paid the entire dues together with interest payable thereon as per rules. “Provided that if the licensee of toddy shop of Toddy Co- operative Societies is found indulging in adulteration, for the first time, the members of managing committee will be disqualified and removed from the primary membership and the society may be continued with eligible tapper/members by imposing fine as prescribed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. “Provided further that if the licensee of toddy shop of a TCS is found indulging in adulteration for Second time the toddy shop license shall be cancelled after following due procedure. In case there are any eligible tappers in such society after cancellation of shop license of Tappers Co-operative Society, Licenses may be granted under tree for tapper scheme and the members of the managing committee will be disqualified in getting any license under these rules. In case of Tree for tapper scheme, when a license is cancelled due to adulteration, the tapper shall be disqualified in getting a license in future or becoming a member of any Tappers Co-operative Society.” 13. A reading of the 2nd proviso to above Rule indicates that regulation by the respondents is in regard to sale of toddy through a licencee and emphasis in Rule 39 of the Rules is on adulteration by a “licencee”. The Rule does not say that premises where the adulteration is discovered for the second time should be the same premises where previously such adulteration was discovered. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that unless respondents detect adulteration twice in the same premises of a licencee, they cannot cancel the licence for the said shops/premises. As adulteration of toddy is harmful to health of the people who are likely to partake it, respondents have rightly initiated steps in accordance with law and cancelled the licences for the shops and depot granted to the petitioner under the impugned orders since on two occasions, adulteration was detected in respect of the shops/depot run by the petitioner. I therefore do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J Dated: 12-07-2013 NRG HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP No.23079 OF 2010 12-07-2013 NRG