THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14005 OF 2010 Dated: 21-06-2010 Between: K. Yada Goud and four others ... PETITIONERS AND Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Excise District Kamareddy, Nizamabad District and two others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14005 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are five in number assailing the proceedings R.C No.E2/47/2010, dated 20-05- 2010 issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Excise District Kamareddy, Nizamabad District – the 1st respondent. This is the second journey of the petitioners to this Court. On an earlier occasion, the petitioners assailed suspension of licences issued to them by filing Writ Petition No. 8875 of 2010. They also moved WPMP No. 11460 of 2010 seeking interim orders. This Court by order dated 20-04-2010 passed the following interim order: “Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise takes notice for the respondents and seeks time for filing counter affidavit. Post on 14-06-2010. This is an application to suspend operation of proceedings R.C.No. E2/47/2010 dated 7-04-2010 issued by respondent No.1. From panchanama dated 4-04-2010 and impugned order dated 7-04-2010, it is prima facie evident that the TFT licenses of the petitioners were suspended on the basis of the finding that the toddy seized from one of the TFT licensees, namely; Sri K. Nara Goud was found adulterated. No toddy was seized from the counters of the petitioners. I therefore find balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners for granting interim order. Accordingly the impugned proceedings are suspended, pending further orders, to the extent of the petitioners only. This order will not preclude the respondents from holding enquiry and passing final orders after following the due procedure.” The 1st respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners submitted explanation dated 05-05-2010. On considering the explanation, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 20-05-2010 suspending the licences issued in favour of the petitioners pending investigation. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise takes notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the authorities are not justified in placing reliance on the panchanama whereunder some toddy came to be seized from K. Nara Goud who is in no way concerned with the petitioners’ shops. Learned counsel strenuously refers to the orders passed by this Court in WPMP No. 11460 of 2010 in support of his contention that the panchanama whereunder certain toddy came to be seized was from K. Nara Goud. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submits that the petitioners have a remedy by way of appeal before the authorities and, therefore, invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction, in the given circumstances, is impermissible. Learned Assistant Government Pleader drew my attention to Section 63 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’). The order impugned in the writ petition is passed by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise Department, Kamareddy. Under Section 63 of the Act, a remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioners. Relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Section 63 of the Act, the writ petition is disposed of. B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 21-06-2010 ks Note: Furnish Copy within three days. B/O ks