THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6538 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not restoring his licence in respect of Uligepalli village of Maldakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted licence No.102 under Tree for Tapper Programme on 30.04.2002 for a period of five years, by the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar District - respondent. On 18.10.2004, the Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Gadwal, has conducted inspection and registered a case in Crime No.131/2004-2005 against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 37(a) of the A.P.Excise Act (for short 'the Act'), on the ground of adulteration. Subsequently, departmental proceedings were completed and the respondent cancelled the licence of the petitioner by proceedings dated 29.12.2005. After completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Gadwal, filed charge sheet against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.119 of 2006. After full- fledged trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner, by judgment dated 27.03.2008 holding that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence under Section 37(a) of the Act. In the light of the subsequent development, the petitioner approached the respondent and gave a representation dated 04.10.2008 seeking restoration of his licence. As no orders have yet been passed on his representation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when once a competent criminal court found the petitioner not guilty and acquitted him of the charge framed against him, the respondent ought to have considered his representation and restore his licence by setting aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2005. In this context, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to some of the judgments of this Court. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise strongly opposed the said submission stating that when there are two independent proceedings against the petitioner i.e. registration of a crime and departmental proceedings, the acquittal of the petitioner by a criminal court cannot be taken into considration for the purpose of restoration of his licence. 5. I am in total agreement with the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. If cancellation of licence is on a mere ground of registration of a crime or conviction by a competent criminal court, the subsequent acquittal would definitely have any amount of importance and the order of cancellation shall be set aside. But, when there are two independent proceedings against the petitioner as stated supra, in my considered view, the said analogy has no application. 5. May be it is true that the criminal court acquitted the petitioner, but that cannot automatically come to the rescue of the petitioner, and on the basis of the said acquittal, he cannot plead either before the respondent or before this Court stating that his licence should be restored. 6. Even in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of R.Yadaiah Vs. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, R.R. District[1], it is observed that when on the same set of facts, a competent criminal court had arrived at a particular conclusion, the licensing authority is expected to take into consideration the said fact also, while making an order in relation to either renewal of licence or cancellation of licence. It is also observed that the said acquittal cannot be a decisive factor. 7. Here is a case where the respondent cancelled the licence of the petitioner on 29.12.2005, whereas the competent criminal court acquitted the petitioner on 27.03.2008. Hence, there was no occasion for the respondent to know about the said judgment. In fact, the charge sheet before the criminal court was filed, subsequent to cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. 8. As the petitioner had approached the respondent on 04.10.2008 and gave a representation seeking restoration of his licence, by producing a copy of the judgment in C.C.No.119 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, the respondent is hereby directed to go through the judgment, and, if the judgment has any relevancy with regard to the departmental proceedings that have been initiated against the petitioner, to take the representation of the petitioner into consideration and pass necessary orders thereon, at the earliest. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 14th October, 2009 CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6538 of 2009 (Disposed of) 14th October, 2009 CBS [1] 2002(2) ALD 839