IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1943 of 2009 Between: E.Narasimulu Goud, S/o. Ramaiah Goud, R/o. Kandanelly Village, Peddamul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Proh. & Excise Superintendent Rajendranagar, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Govt of AP at Abkari Bhavan, Nampally , Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner for Proh. & Excise; Hyderabad Division, Government of A.P., at Abkari Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Proh & Excise Inspector, S.H.O.Tandur, Rangareddy District. Government of A.P., at Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Cr.No.A2/2378/2008, dated 05/12/2008 of 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner states that there are three TFT Counters functioning at Toddy Shop, Kandanelly, and the Excise authorities, on 5.9.2008, issued TFT licence No.455 to him at Counter No.3, where the petitioner is conducting business. While so, the other rival traders, bearing grudge, foisted a false case against him in Cr.No.374/2008-2009 dated 18.9.2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 34(a) & 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 alleging that the excise officials inspected his counter, collected sample and found the toddy adulterated with Chloral Hydrate. Then, the petitioner made a representation dated 10.12.2008 to the 1st respondent indicating that he is not selling any adulterated toddy, but the rival traders, only with a view to involving him in a criminal case, lodged a complaint against him, as such, requested to take action against them, and his grievance is that the 1st respondent has not taken any action, and instead he passed an order 5.12.2008 suspending the his licence without issuing any notice or opportunity to put forth his version. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has not violated any conditions of the licence and in fact, the Excise officials did not inspect the petitioner’s premises, but they inspected a Toddy Shop bearing D.No.5-25, which has no licence at all and the rival traders, in collusion with the respondents, foisted a false case with baseless allegations, which was registered as Crime No. Cr.No.374/2008-2009, dated 18.9.2008, wherein the petitioner’s name is shown as accused. The learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise has submitted that the 1st respondent has suspended the petitioner’s licence pending enquiry only in the interest of the public health and requested the Court to grant six weeks’ time to complete the enquiry, and to take appropriate action in accordance with the outcome of the enquiry. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner is alleged to have involved in the sale of adulterated toddy mixed with Chloral Hydrate, which is injurious to the public health, and thereby contravened Rule 16 of A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 and in connection therewith, a case for the offences punishable under Sections 34(a) & 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, was registered. Further, as a precautionary and temporary measure, to prevent the supply and sale of adulterated toddy, in public interest, and pending enquiry, the licence of the petitioner was kept under suspension, and no interference is called for therewith. However, in view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise that the 1st respondent would complete the enquiry within the stipulated time that may be granted by the Court, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Prohibition and Excise Superintendent is directed to complete the enquiry and based on the outcome of the enquiry, take appropriate action against the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 5th February, 2009 Note: Furnish copy in a week B/o bcj