THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4146 of 2008 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioner, which is a Toddy tappers Cooperative Society of Burugupalli Village in Karimnagar District, has questioned order, dated 02.02.2008 passed by the first respondent – Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, in Rc.No.321/2007/P&Ex-J/A5, by which, the license granted to it for sale of toddy is cancelled. The first respondent issued license bearing No.112/2007, dated 25.10.2007 in Form TS-1 for retail sale of toddy in the name of the petitioner society for a block period of five (5) years commencing from 25.10.2007 to 30.09.2012. As per the said license, very license premises is the house of one M.Chandraiah of Burugupalli Village with the boundaries mentioned therein. It is the case of the petitioner that it has got only one shop, which is being run at the house of M.Chandraiah at Burugupalli Village and it has no other sale point. It appears, on 29.10.2007, some persons of Boinpalli Village, after consuming toddy, fell sick and subsequently, died. There upon, a case is registered in Crime No.97 of 2007 against one Perumandla Sanjeevaiah, who is the member of the petitioner society, for selling toddy to the persons, who died at Boinpalli Village. On the ground that the deceased persons have consumed toddy in the shop of the petitioner society, the samples were drawn from the said shop, sent for analysis and were found to be adulterated as per report, dated 09.01.2008, submitted by the Andhra Pradesh Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. Based on the same, proceedings were initiated by suspending the license of the petitioner society and thereby, show cause notice, dated 23.01.2008 in Rc.No.321/2007/P&Ex-J/A5 was issued to the petitioner society to explain as to why the license granted to it should not be cancelled. The petitioner society submitted a detailed explanation on 30.01.2008, through its President, Sri M.Mallesham. A copy of the said explanation is also placed on record. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner society, it is specifically alleged that the deceased persons have not consumed toddy in its shop and the excise officials have registered the case vide Crime and Occurrence Report No.262/2007-08 against the petitioner society, drawn the samples from its shop and sent the same for chemical analysis, according to which, the said samples are free from Chloral Hydrate and Diazepam vide report, dated 14.11.2007. It is specifically pleaded that report, dated 09.01.2008, as referred to in the show cause notice, is not with reference to the samples drawn from the shop of the petitioner society. It is also specifically pleaded that without considering the chemical analysis report, dated 14.11.2007 and based on the unconnected report, dated 09.01.2008, the action is initiated, as such, a request is made to drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner society. Though the petitioner society referred to several contentious issues in the explanation submitted by it, the first respondent while passing the impugned order, has not adverted to the same and not recorded any finding on the allegations made against the petitioner society with reference to the explanation submitted by it. There is also no finding with regard to the specific plea of the petitioner society that with reference to the samples drawn from its shop, chemical analysis report reveals that there was no adulteration with chloral hydrate and diazepam. When the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner society and a detailed explanation was submitted by it, it is obligatory on the part of the primary authority to consider its explanation before taking action in terms of the show cause notice. Further, as much as specific contentions raised by the petitioner society are not considered and as it is pleaded by the petitioner society that the deceased persons have not consumed the toddy in its shop and with reference to the samples drawn from its shop, the chemical analysis report reveals that it is free from adulteration, this Court is of the view that such explanation requires consideration by the first respondent before passing the impugned order of cancellation. On the short ground of non-considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner society in response to show cause notice, dated 23.01.2008, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, order, dated 02.02.2008, passed in Rc.No.321/2007/P&Ex-J/A5, is set aside, with the direction to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioner society in response to the show cause notice and additional evidence, if any, to be produced by it and by giving it an opportunity of hearing, and pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that if the petitioner society wants to produce any additional evidence, it may do so within a period of six (6) weeks from today. On expiry of the same, the first respondent to pass appropriate orders as referred to above. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni