THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9180 OF 2010 Dated 22nd April, 2010 Between: The Toddy Tappers’ Cooperative Society …Petitioner And The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.Damodar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Proceedings No. B2/340/2009, dated 22.03.2010, whereby the respondent cancelled the Depot licence of the petitioner-Society, and show cause notice dated 03.04.2010 proposing to cancel the licences of the toddy shops of the petitioner-Society. At the outset, Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client is not interested in pressing the prayer pertaining to cancellation of Depot licence, as it wants to avail alternative remedy to question the said proceedings, and that the prayer in the writ petition is limited to challenging the show cause notice. I have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. On the basis of the inspection of the petitioner’s toddy depot on 22.12.2009; its toddy depot licence was cancelled by order dated 22.03.2010. When the said proceedings were pending, the petitioner requested for sending the second sample of toddy for chemical analysis. Accordingly, the respondent sent the second sample for chemical analysis to the Chief Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad, vide his letter dated 10.03.2010. Before the analysis report is received, the respondent issued show cause notice dated 03.04.2010 proposing to cancel the licences of the toddy shops of the petitioner-Society. The petitioner has termed this action as arbitrary and the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated this plea of the petitioner in the course of argument. I find force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 conferred a right on the licensee to make a request for sending the second sample for chemical analysis. It is, therefore, evident from this Rule that the licensing authority shall consider the second sample report before passing a final order. If action for cancellation of licence is taken even before receipt of Chemical Examiner’s report on the second sample, the very object for which the Rule is made becomes redundant. In this view of the matter, I find no justification in the action of the respondent in issuing show cause notice for cancellation of licence even before receiving the Chemical Examiner’s report. Accordingly, the show cause notice is quashed. The respondent is directed to await report from the Chemical Examiner on the second sample and issue a fresh show cause notice after receipt of the said report. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.11859 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd April, 2010 vrn