The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.13122 of 2010 Dated 11th June, 2010 Between: The Toddy Tapers Cooperative Society …Petitioner And The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. M.Damodar Reddy Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 14-05-2010, issued by the respondent whereby he rejected the petitioner’s application for sending one of the toddy samples for analysis to an independent laboratory. The petitioner is a Tappers Cooperative Society, whose business premises was inspected by the officials of the respondent on 20th April, 2010 and samples of toddy were drawn on that day. On 13-05-2010, the President of the petitioner-Society made an application to the respondent for sending one of the sealed samples retained with the petitioner for analysis by an independent laboratory. By the impugned order, the said request was rejected by the respondent placing reliance on Rule 27 (1) of the A.P.Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’). At the hearing, Sri N.Damodar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the spot test conducted on 20th April, 2010, did not reveal adulteration of toddy, the petitioner could not apply for sending of the toddy sample to an independent laboratory for analysis. He also submitted that Sri Ch.Janardhan Goud, who was present at the time of inspection, is not the authorised Nowkar holding a Nowkarnama and therefore, the period of three days prescribed under Rule 27 of the Rules cannot be applied against the petitioner. Rule 27 (1) of the Rules reads as under: “Drawal of the Samples:- Any Prohibition and Excise Officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise or Food Inspector appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, shall be competent to inspect at any time and to take samples from the toddy possessed by the Licensee or any other person, for the purpose of analysis. Such Officer shall take three (3) samples in the presence of the Licensee or his Agent or other person in charge of the Licenced premises or who is found selling toddy in the said premises, after conducting a panchanama. The samples shall be sent to the Court having jurisdiction with a requisition to send, one of the samples expeditiously to the Chemical Examiner of the Prohibition and Excise Department having jurisdiction in the region, in which licenced premises are situated or to any independent laboratory as instructed by the Commissioner for Chemical Examination. If the sample sent to the Chemical Examiner/Laboratory is damaged, in transit or otherwise before the completion of the analysis, the Court may be requested by the concerned officer to send a second sample to the Chemical Examiner/Laboratory. If the Licensee desires that the sample should be sent for analysis to an independent laboratory he may apply to the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent within three (3) days of the drawal of sample. In case, where Licensee or any one of his Nowkarnama holder was not present at the time of taking of sample, the licencee may apply to the concerned Prohibition and Excise Superintendent within seven (7) days from the date of communication of drawal of sample. The application should be accompanied by a demand draft for an amount sufficient to cover the analysis charges. If no such application is filed within the requisite time limit, the Licensee shall not be entitled to seek analysis thereafter. On receipt of the application within the time and with requisite demand draft, the concerned officer shall request the Court to send a sample to the independent laboratory. Provided that any adverse analysis report will constitute sufficient cause for the purpose of exercising the power under Section 31 of the Act, by the authority granting licence or permit to safeguard the public health. Provided further that the officer requesting the Court to send a sample to an independent laboratory on the application of the Licensee has to indicate the name of the independent laboratory to the Court. From the above Rule, it is evident that ordinarily a request for sending the sample for analysis by an independent laboratory requires to be made within three days of drawal of sample. However, where the licensee or any of his Nowkarnama holder was not present at the time of drawal of sample, the licensee may apply to the concerned Prohibition and Excise Superintendent within seven (7) days from the date of communication of drawal of sample. It is not in dispute that the sample was drawn in the presence of the above-mentioned person viz., Ch.Janardhan Goud, Son of Ramlal Goud, who was stated to be working for a salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the said Ch.Janardhan Goud is not a holder of Nowkarnama or that he is not the authorised vendor. In the absence of such a plea, the contention of the learned Counsel that three days’ time limit prescribed under the Rules cannot be applied against the petitioner cannot be countenanced. The object of prescribing three days’ time limit in case of drawal of samples in the presence of the licencee or the holder of Nowkarnama is that stale requests shall not be entertained by the Department. It is only in cases where either the liencee or his authorised representative was not present at the time of drawal of sample that the licencee is given seven days’ time from the time of his receiving information of drawal of samples through notice. Whether Ch.Janardhan Goud held a formal Nowkarnama or not, the undisputed fact is that he was conducting sales in the shops of the Society at the time of inspection and drawal of samples by the officials of the respondent. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the rejection of the petitioner’s request by the respondent as time barred. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.16530 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 11th June, 2010 lur