THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.26749 OF 2009 ORDER: Initially petitioner filed Writ Petition No.19186 of 2009 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings No.221/2009/A2 dated 20.08.2009 issued by the respondent suspending his licence, and consequently, to restrain the respondent from interfering with the sale of toddy by him, contending that he is having a licence to sell toddy in Gollapuram village, Hindpur Mandal, Ananthapur District and has been selling the same since decades without any complaint whatsoever from anybody. It appears, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Ananthapur District conducted a raid and found one person by name E. Lakshmipathi in possession of a can of 35 liters of toddy and selling the same without licence and he seized the stock. During the course of enquiry, said E Lakshmipathi revealed that he is carrying on the business of his (petitioner) instructions. On the basis of the statement given by E.Lakshmipathi, a case in Cr.No.342-2009-10 was registered against him and E.Lakshmipathi on 15.08.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w 8(c) and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for violation of conditions of the licence by selling toddy adulterated with Diazempam. Subsequently he issued a show cause notice in Rc.No.221/2009/A2, dated 20.08.2009 for cancellation of his licence. On the same day, he also issued proceedings in R.no.221/2009/A2, dated 20.08.2009 suspending his licence. To the show cause notice he gave a detailed explanation narrating the facts. However as no order have been passed, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.19186 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 10-9-2009 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent therein to consider the said explanation offered by the petitioner and complete the enquiry at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant thereto, the licencing authority ie., the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise after considering the said explanation offered by the petitioner passed an order dated 9.9.2009 cancelling the licence of the petitioner. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner also dismissed the said appeal vide his proceedings dated 03.11.2009. Against the said order, as provided for, under Section 63 of the A.P.Excise Act, the petitioner approached the Commissioner and filed a further appeal and also an application seeking suspension of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. However, as no orders have been passed, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though there is absolutely nothing, unnecessarily the licence of the petitioner is cancelled and the petitioner is prohibited from carrying on business. The said factual aspect has to be gone into by the Commissioner before whom the Second Appeal filed under Section 63 of the Act is pending. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner to decide the said appeal at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ------------------- 10.12.2009 kvsn