M/s.India Brewery & Distrillery Limited, Factory v. Sanga Reddy
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of clarifying the position that the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 19(1)(g), 226
- A.P. Excise Act
Judgment
Cause title
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19541 of 2004 Between: M/s.India Brewery & Distrillery Limited, Factory: Ameerabad P.O., Hallikhed (SF), Bidar District, Karnataka State, rep., by its Authorised Signatory-Ramesh Darak. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Medak District at Sanga Reddy. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nizamabad District at Nizamabad. 4 M/s.Singnodia Khandasari Sugar Mill, Lakshmipuram (Ramayapet), Medak District. 5 M/s.Shree Laxmi Narasimha Khandasari Sugar Mill, Chegunta, Medak District. 6 M/s.Choudhry Sugars, Dharmareddy Village, Yellareddy Taluk, Nizamabad District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring that the respondents have no jurisdiction to cause any restriction on the transport of Molasses by the petitioner from Andhra Pradesh State to any other place in the other States in India as such restriction is illegal and without jurisdiction apart from being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.E.MARUTHI RAJA Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following :
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring that the respondents have no jurisdiction to restrict the transport of Molasses by the petitioner from the State of Andhra Pradesh to any other place within the State or to other States. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in M/S Gauri Industries (Manufacturers Of Rectified Spirit) V. Commissioner Of Prohibition And Excise, Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.8136 of 2004, wherein it is held as under: “It is a fact that the possession as well as transportation of Molasses was being controlled by the Molasses Control Order, issued by the Central Government.
Operative part
But, however, the said Control Order was rescinded by the Central Government as early as in 1993. Thereafter, there were no provisions either in the A.P. Excise Act or under any Rules framed by the State Government and this fact was clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2209 of 1998 dated 8.5.2001. The restriction of transportation of molasses is only if it is intended for utilization of illicit distillation and on such occasions only the respondent authority can take action. But, however, if any individual is transporting the Molasses under a valid purchase bills to the destination of the purchaser, the respondents authority have no right to interfere with such transportation. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of clarifying the position that the respondents have no right to insist the petitioner for any permission or for obtaining NOC for transport of Molasses from the Sugar Factories to any other specified destination for being used by the purchaser”.
Accordingly, the writ petiton is disposed of in terms of directions in the above ____________ decision. No costs. G.ROHINI, J Date: 26.10.2004 Note: C.C. in (2) days. B/o DA To 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Medak District at Sanga Reddy. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nizamabad District at Nizamabad. 4 M/s.Singnodia Khandasari Sugar Mill, Lakshmipuram (Ramayapet), Medak District. 5 M/s.Shree Laxmi Narasimha Khandasari Sugar Mill, Chegunta, Medak District. 6 M/s.Choudhry Sugars, Dharmareddy Village, Yellareddy Taluk, Nizamabad District. 7 Two CCs to the G.P. for Proh. & Excise, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 8 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of clarifying the position that the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 19(1)(g), 226; A.P. Excise Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Oct 2004. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.