IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6113 of 2009 Between: 1 G. Rama Krishnappa S/o. Gouraiah R/o. Hindupur. 2 G. Rama Chandra S/o. Govindappa R/o. Hindupur. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise A.P. Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Anantapur. 3 Prohibition & Excise Superintendent Penukonda Anantapur 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 to issue a writ, order/ or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not disposing the appeal of TCS., Hindupur for the past 3 months as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and void; and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to permit the eligible members of the TCS : Hindupur to run their business as per the licence which expires in 2012 as per Rule 39 issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228 dated 19-09-2007; Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SREE RANGA RAO 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 members of Hindupur T.C.S. (Tappers Cooperative Society) and were granted Depot licence on 03.10.2007 and since then they have been doing toddy business in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence andTapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 (for short “the Rules”). While so, the 3rd respondent, without following due process of law, cancelled their licences by proceedings dated 8.12.2008 on the ground that the toddy that was sold by the petitioners was found to be adulterated with Chloral Hydrate. Then, the President of Hindupur T.C.S. preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent, who, by an order, dated 17.12.2008, dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the 3rd respondent, without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by this order, the President of Hindupur T.C.S. filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 24.12.2008, but it is their grievance that the 1st respondent has not disposed of the appeal so far nor permitted the petitioner to continue their toddy business. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. As against the impugned order, the petitioners have remedy of appeal under Section 63 of the A.P. Excise Act. Admittedly, the petitioners have already filed the appeal against the impugned order before the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, on 24.12.2008, but no orders thereon have been passed so far. Since the appeal filed by the petitioners, is pending consideration before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, who is the appellate authority, is directed to dispose of the appeal said to have been preferred by the petitioners on 24.12.2008, in the light of the proviso to Rule 39 of the Rules expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. In case, the 1st respondent finds it difficult to dispose of the appeal within the time stipulated, he is directed to allow the eligible members including the petitioners to run their toddy business till the disposal of the appeal.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 25th March, 2009 bcj