IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8992 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sakthi Sugars Limited, Haripur, Dhenkanal-759013, Orissa State, rep by its Authorised Signatory-Hemanth Das, S/o Late jagumani Das aged 50 years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Etikoppaka Co-operative Agricultural & Industrial Society,Ltd., Etikoppaka, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.MARUTHI RAJA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not considering application dated 02.04.2008 of the petitioner, whereunder it sought for permission of respondent No.1 to lift the molasses purchased from respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri E. Maruthi Raja, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner, who is carrying on its business in Orissa State, claims to have purchased 1000 metric tons of molasses from respondent No.2 sugar factory under letter dated 19.02.2008; that he obtained “No Objection Certificate” (for short, “NOC”) dated 02.04.2008 from Orissa State to lift 2000 metric tons of molasses from the state of Andhra Pradesh; that the subordinate officials of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are insisting upon the NOC from the Excise Department of A.P. for lifting the stock of molasses from respondent No.2-Society and that the petitioner made its application on 02.04.2008 to respondent No.1 to permit it to lift and transport 2000 metric tons of molasses from respondent No.2 premises. The petitioner in its affidavit pleaded that since the Molasses Control Order, 1961 made by the Government of India under Section 18(G) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was rescinded by it vide S.O.371 (E) dated 10.06.1993, respondent No.1 or his subordinates cannot place any restrictions on the transport of molasses. At the hearing, the fact that the abovementioned Molasses Control Order was rescinded by the Government of India is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. That being so, respondent No.1 or his subordinates cannot place undue restrictions on the petitioner to lift and transport the molasses, unless they suspect on the basis of credible material that it is being misused contrary to any control order or provisions of law. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider and dispose of representation dated 02.04.2008 filed by the petitioner and issue required permissions to the petitioner unless he has reason to believe that the said stock is meant for illegal purpose. In the event of rejection of permissions, respondent No.1 shall pass a detailed order giving reasons therefor, and furnish a copy of such an order to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 shall complete this exercise within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.11918 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 23-04-2008 LUR