Disposed

M/s. Prabhat Gudakhu Factory, Souraguda, v. The Commissioner of Proh and Excise

Telangana HC7 Dec 2004WP/22548/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Gudakhu manufacturer, sought a writ declaring that respondents lack jurisdiction to restrict Molasses transport from Andhra Pradesh to Orissa for legal manufacturing, citing constitutional violations and precedent.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with Molasses transport for lawful manufacturing.

M/s. Prabhat Gudakhu Factory, Souraguda, Vs The… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 22548 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Prabhat Gudakhu Factory, Souraguda, JEYPORE-764-005,

¶9

Koraput district, Orisa State, rep. by its Authorised Signatory Bijay

¶10

Kumar Tripathy, S/o. Gangadhar Tripathy, Aged 35 Years, R/o. Jaypore, Orissa State.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Commissioner of Proh & Excise, A.P., Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Srikakulam, Srikakulam

¶15

District. 3 GMR Industries Ltd., ( Sugar Division), Samkili -532 440, Regidi,

¶16

Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

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-1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to cause any restriction on the transport of Molasses by the petitioner from A.P. State to any other place in the other States in India as such restriction is illegal and without jurisdiction part from being violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and pass such other or further orders as are necessary.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.MARUTHI RAJA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

¶21

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

¶22

Petitioner claims to be an industry, undertaking manufacture of Gudakhu (Dental paste). Molasses is stated to be one of the raw materials, apart from lime and tobacco, for manufacture of the said product. It is alleged that Molasses is purchased from the various sugar factories in the State of Andhra Pradesh and is transported to the State of Orissa, where the factory is situated. The petitioner complains that respondents 1 and 2 are interfering with such transport.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise.

¶24

The necessity to obtain licence or transport permit for possessing or transporting Molasses was considered by this Court in M/s Gauri Industries (Manufacturers of Rectified Spirit) v. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.8136 of 2004), which, in turn, followed certain Judgments of the Division Bench. It was held therein that no permit is needed for transporting the Molasses under valid purchase bills. A rider was added to the effect that in case the Molasses is used for manufacture of any illicit liquor, or for other unauthorized purposes, it can certainly be seized.

¶25

Following the same, this writ petition is disposed of directing that-

¶26

a. Respondents 1 and 2 shall not interfere with the transport of the Molasses by the petitioner as long as it is meant for manufacture of any product, which is not prohibited by law;

¶27

b. The petitioner shall not be entitled to use the Molasses so transported for manufacture of the illicit liquor or other products prohibited by law; and

¶28

c. There shall be no order as to costs.

07.12.2004

ksld

1 The Commissioner of Proh & Excise, A.P., Hyderabad.

¶33

2 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Srikakulam, Srikakulam

¶34

District.

¶35

3 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Excise, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶36

(OUT).

¶37

4 Two CD copies.

M/s. Prabhat Gudakhu Factory, Souraguda, v. The Commissioner of Proh and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Prabhat Gudakhu Factory, Souraguda, v. The Commissioner of Proh and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanchapu Ramalingaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

Nagaraja Guptha S/o P. Pullaiah Vs The Joint Collector

G. Anjanamma, Vs The Joint Collector

Government Class-Iv Employees, (Regd. No. 180/97) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Subba Rao, Vs Joint Collector

K.v.Ramana Reddy Vs The Joint Collector