IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 23425 of 2008 Between: Ch. Ashok S/o. Narsimha R/o. Keesara Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus and declare the action of the respondent in suspending the licence of the petitioner through his proceedings No.Cr.No.B2/2041/2008, dated 04.10.2008 on the basis of the inspection conducted at nearby Counter as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 23426 of 2008 Between: R. Mallesh, S/o. Yadaiah, R/o. Keesara Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus and declare the action of the respondent in suspending the licence of the petitioner through his proceedings No. Cr.No. B2/2041/2008, dated 4-10-2008 on the basis of the inspection conducted at nearby Counter as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 23427 of 2008 Between: P.Yadagiri Goud S/o.Venkataiah R/o. Keesara Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus and declare the action of the respondent in suspending the licence of the petitioner through his proceedings No. Cr.No. B2/2041/2008, dated 4-10-2008 on the basis of the inspection conducted at nearby Counter as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 23428 of 2008 Between: R. Shiva Kumar S/o. Mallaiah R/o. Keesara Village & Mandal, R.R. Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent R.R. District at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, and declare the action of the respondent in suspending the licence of the petitioner through his proceedings No.Cr.No.B2/2041/2008, dated 4-10-2008 on the basis of the inspection conducted at nearby Counter as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 23429 of 2008 Between: M. Anjaiah, S/o. Sathaiah, R/o. Keesara Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, and declare the action of the respondent in suspending the licence of the petitioner through his proceedings No. Cr.No. B2/2041/2008, dated 4-10-2008 on the basis of the inspection conducted at near by Counter as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NOs.23425 T O 23429 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER The petitioners herein are tappers by profession holding licenses for sale of toddy under TFT scheme within the area of operation TFT Keesara at counter Nos.10, 13, 15, 12 and 14 respectively. These writ petitions are ﬁled with a common prayer to declare the orders dated.04-10-2008 passed by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Ranga Reddy District suspending the licenses of the petitioners with immediate eﬀect as an interim measure pending enquiry, as arbitrary and illegal. Since all the writ petitions are based on the same set of facts, they are heard together and decided by this common order. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned orders of suspension dated. 04-10-2008 shows that the State Task Force Team inspected the TFT shop, Keesara village on 10-09-2008. One person by name M.Yadaiah who was present in the shop was found to be the licensee of counter No.5. However, he stated that he was selling toddy on behalf of licensees in respect of counter Nos.10,13,15,12 and 14 also and produced the copies of licenses of all the said licensees. The inspection team found a stock of ﬁve wooden crates of toddy, each crate containing 24 bottles ﬁlled with toddy of 650 ml in each bottle. Though in the spot test the toddy was found to be free from Chloral Hydrate, three samples were drawn out of the toddy available under a cover of panchanama and the same were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The report dated.24-09-2008 issued by the Chemical Examiner, Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Narayanaguda revealed that the sample was fermented toddy adulterated with Alprazolam. In the light of the said report having prima facie found that the licensee of counter No.5 as well as the licensees of counter Nos.10,13,15,12 and 14 indulged in the sale of adulterated toddy mixed with Alprazolam and thereby contravened the Rule.16 of A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to sell toddy, conditions of Licence and tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007, all the licenses were suspended pending enquiry in exercise of powers under Section.31(1) of A.P. Excise Act,1968 by separate orders dated 4.10.2008. Challenging the said orders the licensees in respect of counter Nos.10, 13, 15, 12 and 14 ﬁled these writ petitions contending inter alia that since no samples were drawn from the counter Nos.10, 13, 15, 12 and 14, and the alleged adulteration as per the report of the Chemical Examiner dated.24-09-2008 was only in respect of the sample drawn from counter No.5, the impugned orders of suspension were arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that on 10.9.2008 all the petitioners were personally conducting the business at their respective counters and the version of the respondents that the licensee of counter No.5 was selling toddy on behalf of the petitioners also in counter No.5 is absolutely false and without any basis. At any rate, since there is absolutely no material to show that the petitioners herein are parties to the alleged adulteration of toddy by the licensee of counter No.5, the impugned orders of suspension particularly without giving the petitioners an opportunity to explain the allegations, is unwarranted and unjustified. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, I do not ﬁnd any justiﬁable reason to interfere with the impugned orders at this stage on any of the grounds raised in the writ petitions. As could be seen, in the panchanama itself it was recorded that the licensee of Counter No.5 by name M. Yadaiah stated that the licensees of counter Nos.10, 13, 15, 12 and 14 (the petitioners herein) were not available and that he was selling the toddy on behalf of the said licensees also. He also produced the licenses in respect of the said five counters. The chemical analysis of the samples of toddy drawn from the stock available in the premises revealed that the same were adulterated with Alprazolam which is injurious to public health. Thus, a prima facie case was made out to show that the petitioners were indulging in sale of adulterated toddy in contravention of Statutory Rules read with Conditions of Licence and therefore the respondents thought it ﬁt to take immediate preventive action to stop the sales to the consumers so as to avoid further injury to public health. In view of the gravity of the allegation which involves public danger, the discretion exercised by the respondents in suspending the licenses pending enquiry cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The correctness of the version recorded in the panchanama that the licensee of counter No.5 was transacting the business on behalf of the petitioners also being the subject-matter of the enquiry yet to be conducted by the competent authority, it is neither proper nor necessary for this Court to go into the merits at this stage. Moreover since the impugned orders of suspension are only as an interim measure, it is always open to the petitioners to participate in the enquiry before the competent authority and raise all the objections against the proposed action. In Satyana Goud & Ors Vs. The Excise Superintendent, Mahaboobnagar & Ors([1]), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegation was that an unlicensed and illegal toddy depot was being maintained wherein the toddy samples were found to be adulterated. Since no case was made out connecting toddy shops of the petitioners with the unauthorized toddy depot, this Court held that the suspension of the licenses of the petitioners therein was arbitrary and illegal. However, in the case on hand, a prima facie case was made out since the person present in the shop had produced licenses of the petitioners and stated that he was conducting sales on their behalf also. The other unreported judgments in W.A.No.411 of 1999, dated.23-03-1999 and W.P.No.19817 of 1998 dated.13- 10-1998 are also distinguishable on facts and therefore not applicable to the present cases. For the aforesaid reasons, the interference by this court with the impugned orders at this stage is not warranted. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry against the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No order as to costs ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.30.10.2008 *TSNR [1] 1994(2) A.P.L.J.42 (HC)