Tappers Cooperative Society Group, Bellampalli v. The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise and four others

The petitioner is a Toddy Tappers’ Cooperative Society, consisting of one toddy depot and 11 toddy shops. It was granted licenses for its toddy depot and also for the toddy shops. While so, on the allegation that the samples drawn from toddy shop No.10 belonging to the petitioner-Society were found to be adulterated with diazepam, after issuing show cause notice, the licenses granted in favour of the petitioner-Society were cancelled by respondent No.3-Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Mancherial, by an order dated 07.05.2009, passed in Proceedings No.A2/138/2008. Against the said order, the petitioner-Society had preferred an appeal before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad and the same was ended in dismissal, by an order dated 04.06.2009, passed Cr.No.519/P&Ex/2009/A3. As against the said order, a further appeal under Section 63(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, along with an application for stay, was preferred by the petitioner-Society before respondent No.1-Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, on 13.06.2009.

In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner-Society is that the allegations, on the basis of which the licenses were cancelled, are false, and in spite of valid explanation offered by it, respondent No.3, without considering the same, cancelled the licenses. It is further stated that the members of the Society are solely dependent on toddy business, and though the appeal was preferred by it on 13.06.2009 before respondent No.1, the same has not yet been taken up for consideration. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the criminal case, registered against the Director of the petitioner-Society, alleging that one person by name Mulkala Shanker had died after consuming the toddy sold in toddy shop No.10, also ended in acquittal, with a finding that there was no proof of consumption of liquor by the deceased from the said shop. Since it is stated that the petitioner-Society preferred the second appeal before respondent No.1 on 13.06.2009, as provided under Section 63(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, by this time, the said authority ought to have considered the same.

Though several contentions are raised by the petitioner-Society pleading that no valid reasons have been recorded before cancellation of the licenses, and the criminal case was also ended in acquittal, it is not desirable for this Court to record any finding on the said pleas in this writ petition in view of pendency of the appeal preferred by it before respondent No.1. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second appellate authority i.e., respondent No.1, to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner-Society, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While deciding the appeal, respondent No.1 shall also take into consideration the finding of acquittal recorded in the criminal case registered against the Director of the petitioner-Society. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. R.SUBHASH REDDY, J _____________________ Dated 8th September, 2009 Note: Issue C.C in one week (b/o)