IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9777 of 2008 Between: Subash Goud, s/o. Nara Goud, R/o. Kamole Village, Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Adilabad District at Adilabad. 2 The Inspector of Prohibition and Excise (SHO), Bhainsa, Adilabad District. 3 Master Yogesh Goud, S/o. Saya Goud, Toddy Shop of Kamole Village, Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabad District, Rep by Natural Guardian Saya Goud .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondent No.3: ---- The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: ‘It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the proceedings vide Rc.No.A5/20/2008 dated 05-02-2008 proceeding to cancel the TFT licence of Counter No.3 of the petitioner, rejecting the request for sending the second sample bottle vide Rc.No.A5/20/2008 dated 05-03-2008 as illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to send the second sample bottle to the independent lab, pending the receipt of the first and second sample bottle reports from the independent labs in respect of the petitioner Toddy shop, Counter No.3, Kamole Village, Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabad District and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to withdraw the bogus TFT licence of the 3rd respondent i.e., Counter No.1 of Kamole Village, Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabald District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.’ At the hearing, Sri Sai Ram Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner, conceded that under Section 63 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Karimnagar Division. Since the petitioner failed to avail such a remedy, which is, undoubtedly, efficacious, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition on merits. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal, and on such appeal being received, the appellate authority shall dispose of the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.12880 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 30th April, 2008 LUR