IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.19049 of 2011 Between: E.Aswarthappa ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibitiion and Excise Department, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Aswarthanarayana Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner, who is a licensee under Tree For Taper (TFT) Scheme in respect of Besalamanepalli Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Ananthapur District, filed this Writ Petition, feeling aggrieved by Orders, dated 23-11- 2010 and 20-12-2010, whereby respondent No.2 has suspended and cancelled the petitioner’s TFT license respectively. At the hearing, Sri N.Aswarthanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even though the suspension order was shown to be dated 23-11- 2010, the same was served on the petitioner’s son on 05-05-2011 and that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not considered by respondent No.2 before the impugned cancellation order was passed. In my opinion, with the passing of the order of cancellation of the petitioner’s TFT license, the order of suspension looses its force and existence as the same gets merged in the final order of cancellation. Therefore, the said order cannot be questioned at this stage. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel that the petitioner’s explanation was not properly considered, he is left with an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 63 of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. This remedy, in my opinion, is efficacious and the petitioner is entitled to raise all legally permissible grounds in the appeal. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain and adjudicate this Writ Petition on merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without going into the merits of the case and with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy as indicated above. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.22996 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 8th July, 2011 lur