HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.20600 & 26849 of 2010 Date : 12-12-2011 W.P.No.20600 of 2010 Between: The Toddy Co-operative Society, Group No.VIII, Karimnagar (Urban) Town & District, represented by its President Vollala Madhu Kiran .. Petitioner And The Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri B. Sai Ram Goud Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since the parties and the subject matter of dispute in these cases are common, they are being heard and disposed of together. I have heard Sri B. Sai Ram Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, representing the respondents. The petitioner is a Toddy Co-operative Society, Group No.VIII of Karimnagar (Urban), Town and District. Its shop was inspected by the Prohibition and Excise officials and toddy samples were drawn. Following the same, the petitioner’s licence was suspended on 10-8-20010. A notice was also issued to the petitioner to show cause why its licence shall not be cancelled. The petitioner filed W.P.No.20600/2010 for a mandamus to direct the respondents not to cancel the petitioner’s toddy licence pending receipt of report on the second sample. This Court, by order dated 20-8-2010 directed the respondents not to pass any final order with respect to cancellation of the petitioner’s licence without first sending the second sample for testing. Against the order of suspension of its licence, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 3-9-2010 by respondent No.1. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26849/2010. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.No.26849/2010, it is inter alia stated that on the request made by the petitioner for sending the second sample for chemical analysis, the same was sent to the State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad, but a minor alteration was needed with reference to the drawing of the demand draft (analysis fees) in favour of the Chief Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam instead of the Director, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, in whose favour the demand draft was drawn by the petitioner; that the petitioner was accordingly informed on 15-10-2010 and 22-10- 2010 for making alteration of the demand draft and that its response was awaiting. It is further stated that as per the directions of this Court, no final orders will be passed by the licencing authority until receipt of report on the second sample. At the hearing, Sri B. Sai Ram Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, on specific instructions from his client, stated that the correction referred to in para-7 of the counter- affidavit was attended to; that the second sample was sent to the State Food Laboratory, Nacharam and that the report is expected in a day or two. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, stated that unless the correction pointed out in the demand draft is carried out by the petitioner, it cannot insist on receipt of report on the second sample and that if the petitioner has already made the correction, the licensing authority will await receipt of report on the second sample. As regards W.P.No.26849/2010, no interim order has been granted by this Court, as a result of which the order of suspension of the petitioner’s licence is in operation. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the petitioner is not running the shops. Inasmuch as the enquiry is pending and the impugned order relates only to the suspension of the petitioner’s licence, which was confirmed in appeal, I am not inclined to interfere with these orders at this stage. W.P.No.26849/2010 is accordingly dismissed. As far as W.P.No.20600/2010 is concerned, in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, as noted above, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: If the petitioner has made good the defect pointed out in the demand draft and the second sample was already sent for analyst’s report, respondent No.1 shall await the report on the second sample before passing the final order on the show cause notice already issued. If the report on the second sample is received, respondent No.1 shall intimate the same to the petitioner and invite additional explanation, if any before passing the final order. Conversely, if the petitioner has not attended to the defect pointed out in the demand draft and sending the second sample for analysis became abortive, respondent No.1 shall be free to pass the final order independent of such report. As a sequel, WPMP No.26203/2010, WVMP No.753/2010 in W.P.No.20600/2010 and WPMP No.34314/2010 in W.P.No.26849/2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 12-12-2011 AM