The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.17346 of 2010 Date: 14-12-2011 Between: The Toddy Tapers Cooperative Society, Venkatapur Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District, rep. by its President. ..... Petitioner AND The Prohibition & Excise, Superintendent, Sangareddy, Medak District .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.Damodar Reddy Counsel for Respondent: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Cr.No.B2/302/2009, dated 16-07-2010, of the respondent. The petitioner is the toddy tapers cooperative Society. The Special Task Force party inspected the toddy depot of the petitioner on 27-08-2009 and has drawn three toddy samples under a cover of panchanama. The analysis report of the Chemical Examiner for Excise, Hyderabad, opined that the toddy sample was fermented toddy adulterated with alprazolam. When orders of cancellation in respect of the depot and shops were passed, before receiving the report on the second sample, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.28862 of 2009 and 5795 of 2010 relating to depot and shops respectively. Both these Writ Petitions were allowed by separate orders, dated 31- 12-2009 and 22-03-2010, respectively with the direction to the respondent herein to consider the chemical analysis report on the second sample after calling for objections from the petitioner before passing a fresh order. Accordingly, the respondent has issued the impugned showcause notice wherein it is stated that the second sample report received from the Chief Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad, showed Nil adulteration. It has come out that the petitioner has submitted its explanation on 06-07-2010. However, anticipating cancellation of the license, the present Writ Petition is filed. In his counter-affidavit, the respondent inter alia stated that in response to the showcause notice, the petitioner submitted its explanation and that in view of the interim order granted by this Court, no order has been passed so far. Since the petitioner has already submitted its explanation, I do not find any justification to interdict further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned showcause notice. The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s explanation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the respondent, it shall be free to avail appropriate legal remedy. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interim order, dated 20-07-2010, is vacated and WVMP.No.62135 of 2010 in/& WPMP.No.21853 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 14th December, 2011 LUR