Sannapureddy Lakshmi Vs The SLaLe of Andhra Pradesh

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under article 226 of the constitution of India declaring the action of the respondents 4 to 6 herein in seizing the liquor stock from the A4 licensed shop of the petitioner instead of taking delivery of unsold stock after the expiry of the period of license and the further action of the 6th respondent in registering a crime in CR No. 31/2017 dated 2.7.2017 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station. Badvel as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently to direct the respondents to cause refund of the value of the seized stock to the petitioner and to set aside CR No. 31 of 2017 dated 2.7.2017 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station, Badvel and pass such other order or orders.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.P SRIDHAR REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE (AP)

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.24267 of 2017

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash or set aside the CR No.37/2017 dated 02.07.2017, registered by Prohibition and Excise Station, Badvel, for commission of offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968 (for brevity hereafter called as Act) against the petitioner and also to direct the respondents to cause refund of the value of the seized stock to the petitioner.

¶29

The petitioner is the successful applicant of A4 outlet at Ramasamudram Village, B.Kodur Mandalam YSR Kadapa District to sell Indian made foreign liquor and foreign liquor pursuant to the notification issued in the gazette for grant of license for the retail outlets in Kadapa District, for the period 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017. The respondents have issued license No. 97/2015-2017 dated 21.09.2015. The petitioner herein paid the license fee of Rs.60,00,000/- for the above period in six installments. Admittedly, the license was expired on 30.06.2017 and the inspection was conducted on 02.07.2017.

¶30

The 4^th respondent has seized the balance unsold stock of the petitioner and registered the criminal case against the petitioner for the

¶31

4

¶32

offence under Section 34(A) of the Act. The seizure and registration of crime was assailed in the writ petition on the grounds that the no notice was issued to the petitioner to handover the remaining stock and such seizure is violation of conditions stipulated under Section 34(A) of the Act and the petitioners’ husband has voluntarily has telephoned to the 4^th respondent about existence of the unsold stock.

¶33

The Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor & Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 were framed under Section 72 of the Act. (For brevity hereafter refer as Rules) Under Rule 61 of the Rules: any officer not below the rank of an Excise Sub-Inspector may enter and inspect the licensed premises. Under 62(A) of the rules: every licensee granted under the rules shall on its expiry be surrendered by the licensee to the licensing authority and under 69(1) of the rules the unsold stock shall be handed over to the authority. The said rule is hereby extracted for effective disposal of the writ petition.

¶34

Rule 69 Stocks on the expiry of license period: (1) The Licensee shall sell in retail the entire Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor before the expiry of the License. Any balance of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Beer found unsold at the expiry of the period of license, shall be seized by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent or the officer authorised by him or Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise. Such seized IL & FL shall be permitted by the licensing authority to handover to the licensee,

¶35

5

¶36

provided that the licensee obtains a license for the succeeding lease year. In case, the licensee fails to obtain/renew the licensee, the stocks seized may be sold to the other licensees and the sale proceeds shall be remitted into the Government Treasury.

¶37

Sub-section(2): Stocks on cancellation or withdrawal of license: not relevant for this case:

¶38

On careful reading of rule 69(1) it outlines that the authority can seize the unsold stock and there is no such stipulation that a notice is mandatory. Admittedly the petitioner holds unsold stock, it is the case of the petitioner that an intimation was given to the respondents. Whether such intimation was given is a question of fact has to decided by the authorities recording the evidence. As per the FIR, it is the respondents' case that the petitioner's husband did not respond to repeated phone calls; therefore, they broke open the shop in the presence of mediators. Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner that notice is required before seizing of the stock is overturned and held against the petitioner.

¶39

The essential elements to constitute the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner, is conspicuously present in this case and the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As held by the

¶40

6

¶41

Apex Court in catena of decisions that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution and/or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR at the threshold is required to be exercised sparingly.

¶42

Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and there is no occasion or reason to quash the crime in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as per Rule 69(1), the authorities can be seized the unsold stock.

¶43