THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.193 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, represented by its President, with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing the impugned order in proceedings Cr.No.B2/613/2010, dated 24-12-2010 suspending the license bearing No.28, dated 09-10-2007 of TC.S Uttarpally Village, Sanga Reddy Mandal, Medak District as also not considering the request of the petitioner society dated 22-12-2010 to sending the second sample bottle to the independent lab i.e. State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principle of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to send the second sample bottle to an independent Lab as requested by the petitioner society and till the receipt of the chemical analysis report from the independent lab the impugned suspension order passed by the 1st respondent shall not be given effect to.” The petitioner society was given license for a block period of five years commencing from 09.10.2007 to 30.09.2012 for sale of toddy in Uttarpally Village. On the ground that the second respondent – Sub- Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, O/o the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise (Enforcement), Medak District, inspected the toddy shop of the petitioner on 21.12.2010, and on conducting spot test of the toddy, he found that it was adulterated, the first respondent – Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Medak at Sanga Reddy, issued proceedings, dated 24.12.2010, in Cr.No.B2/613/2010, suspending the petitioner’s license for rest of the period, pending further enquiry. It is the case of the petitioner society that the above said allegation is false and that on 22.12.2010 itself, a representation was filed by it by paying necessary amount of Rs.250/- through a cheque drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Sanga Reddy Branch, to send the second sample bottle to the Director, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, for analysis. It is submitted that in spite of the same, no steps have been taken and till today, no notices were issued to the petitioner society. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents that steps are being taken on the representation filed by the petitioner society for sending the second sample bottle to the laboratory for analysis. A perusal of the impugned proceedings indicates that there is no report from any laboratory to show that the toddy, which was being sold by the petitioner society, was adulterated. Except the test stated to have been conducted by the excise authorities themselves, there is no other material to support the allegation against the petitioner society that the toddy, which was being sold by it, was adulterated. At least, the respondents ought to have waited till receipt of the report on the one of the sample bottles drawn during inspection by the second respondent. As it is stated that the petitioner society has already requested the first respondent to send the second sample bottle to the Director, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, for analysis, by way of representation, dated 22.12.2010, by paying necessary amount through cheque, and in view of the fact that no action has been taken on such representation and even till today, no notices were issued to the petitioner society, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to take steps for sending the second sample bottle to an independent laboratory for examination and report, as per the request of the petitioner society. Such steps shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. Further, till receipt of appropriate report from the laboratory, the impugned proceedings shall remain suspended. It is made clear that after receipt of the report from the laboratory, it is open to the respondents to take further steps in accordance with law. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th JANUARY, 2011. kvni