Telangana High Court
WP/33052/2010 of E. Srinivasulu Goud Vs The Commissioner for Prohibition AND Excise, on 29 December 2010
R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.33052 of 2010 Date: December 29, 2010 Between: E. Srinivasulu Goud, S/o. Dariyappa Goud, R/o. Adoni, Kurnool District … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition And Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and two others ... Respondents Order: This
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No.33052 of 2010
Date: December 29, 2010
Between:
E. Srinivasulu Goud, S/o. DariyappaGoud, R/o. Adoni, Kurnool District … Petitioner
And
The Commissioner of ProhibitionAnd Excise, Government of AndhraPradesh, and two others
... Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order:
This writ petition is filed questioning proceedings Rc.No.B2/638/2010, dated 28-10-2010, issued by thethird respondent-Prohibition and Excise Superintendent,Kurnool, Kurnool District, canceling the Toddy Depotlicence of Adoni Tappers Cooperative Society, of whichthe petitioner herein is the President, in exercise ofpowers under Section 31 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (forshort, ‘the Act’).
It is submitted by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that as much as the allegation of adulteration oftoddy is leveled against Society for the first time; in view ofproviso to Rule 39 of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to sell Toddy, Conditions ofLicence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 (forshort, ‘the Rules), respondents ought to have taken stepsfor disqualifying and removing the members of themanaging committee; but straightway no order could havebeen passed canceling the licence. It is further submittedthat if the impugned proceedings are allowed to stand, themembers of the Society would be put to great hardship.
Under Section 63(1) of the Act, against the orders ofthe Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, an appeal liesto the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. In view ofavailability of alternative and efficacious remedy of appealto the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise against the impugned proceedings issued by theProhibition and Excise Superintendent, there is no reasonto entertain the writ petition at this stage, bypassing thesaid remedy.
In that view of the matter, without going into themerits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of thewrit petition permitting the petitioner to file an appealagainst the impugned proceedings before the appellateauthority within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt of this order. If any such appeal is filed by thepetitioner, I am sure the appellate authority will take theappeal on file, consider affording the petitioner the benefitof proviso to Rule 39 of the Rules and dispose of theappeal, by hearing the petitioner, within a period of sixweeks from the date of filing of the appeal.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Noorder as to costs.
___________________
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, J)
December 29, 2010
MRR