IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9331 of 2004 Between: Bandamaisammanagar Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad Hyderabad District, rep. by its President S.Sreeramulu Goud. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition & Excise Department rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Prohibition & Excise Superintendent Functional Registrar TTCS, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Cr.No.B1/297/2004/ESH. dt. 30/04/2004 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of AP. Excise Act & Rules made the under and violative of fundamental rights more particularly Art. 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI A.SATYA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9331 of 2004 ORDER: Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, Bandamaisammanagar, Hyderabad (hereafter called, TCS) impugns the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 30.04.2004, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was informed that they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,98,500/- towards outstanding balance of rentals of 2002-2003 and rentals for 2003-2004 (for the months of October, November, December 2003; January and February 2004), as illegal and arbitrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (the Act, for brevity), and the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 (the Rules, for brevity). This writ petition is yet another eﬀort by the petitioner-TCS to challenge the orders of the second respondent to pay the rentals for the period referred to hereinabove. The writ petition is a sequel to another writ petition, being W.P.No.3880 of 2004, ﬁled by them. The said writ petition was ﬁled challenging the show cause notice dated 16.02.2004 issued by the second respondent demanding a sum of Rs.3,70,052/-. This Court after adverting to the gist of the petitioner’s eﬀorts from 2002 onwards when their licence was suspended, till issuance of the said show cause notice, disposed of W.P.M.P.No.5124 of 2004 in W.P.No.3880 of 2004 in the following manner. Under the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders after considering the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner, especially in the light of the directions issued by the respondents dated 6-9-2003 directing the petitioner to close down its shop with immediate eﬀect and from which date the petitioner was precluded from carrying on its business. Under the above circumstances, the respondents have to consider the representation and pass appropriate order. The respondents are therefore directed not to take any coercive steps till passing of the ﬁnal orders. In obedience thereto, the second respondent considered the matter in the light of the representation submitted by the President/Managing Committee of TCS and passed impugned order disagreeing with the contention that for the period during which they were ordered to close down the shop they were not liable to pay the rentals. Proceedings of the second respondent dated 30.04.2004 is assailed in the writ petition. Essentially, two submissions are made that for the period from 06.09.2003 to 05.02.2004 as directed by the second respondent, the petitioner closed the shop, and therefore, petitioner is not liable to pay rentals as per Rule 42 of the Rules, and that when this Court speciﬁcally directed to consider the matter in the light of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 06.09.2003, the same was not adverted to. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Excise made elaborate submissions on merits of the case. However, having regard to the admitted fact that the second respondent did not consider the eﬀect of the proceedings bearing Cr.No.B1/D1/5274/2002/P&ESH, dated 06.09.2003, this Court is of considered opinion that the matter should be sent back for fresh consideration. If, after considering the eﬀect of the proceedings dated 06.09.2003 any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, it shall be open to them to prefer appeal under Section 63(1) of the Act to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, and thereafter further appeal to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise under Section 63(2) of the Act. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent to consider the matter in the light of the proceedings dated 06.09.2003 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 12.11.2008 Note: Issue C.C by tomorrow. B/o. vs To 1 The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Prohibition & Excise Superintendent Functional Registrar TTCS, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 3 2CCs to G.P for Prohibition and Excise, High Court of A.P., Hyderbad. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GR}