Allowed

The Toddy Cooperative Society, Group-Viii, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Telangana HC17 Mar 2010WP/24261/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner's licence was cancelled for adulteration. The respondent admitted failure to issue a show cause notice. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and gave liberty to the respondent to issue the notice and act according to law.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order was quashed; liberty was granted to the respondent to issue a show cause notice.

The Toddy Cooperative Society, Group-Viii, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its — Telangana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.24261 OF 2008

¶3

Dated 17^th March, 2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

The Toddy Cooperative Society …Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh And three others …Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B.Sai Ram Goud Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Prohibition and Excise

¶9

The Court made the following

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

I have heard Sri B.Sai Ram Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.

¶13

The petitioner is a Toddy Tappers’ Cooperative Society. During an inspection made on 25.01.2007, from one of the toddy shops of the petitioner, toddy samples were seized apart from seizing 250 grams of alprazolam lying in the shop. The seized toddy sample was sent for chemical analysis and according to the respondents, the toddy was found adulterated with chloral hydrate. Respondent No.4, vide his proceedings dated 07.11.2007, cancelled the licence of the petitioner society on the ground that it has indulged in adulteration. The appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.3 was dismissed. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition.

¶14

In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, he has fairly stated that under Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of licence to sell toddy, conditions of licence and tapping of excise trees) Rules, 2007 a show cause notice is required to be given before cancelling the licence and that since no such show cause notice has been given, this Court may permit him to issue a show cause notice and take action in accordance with law.

¶15

In view of this stand taken by respondent No.4, the writ petition is

¶16

allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.4 to issue a show cause notice and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶18

Dated 17^th March, 2010 vrn

The Toddy Cooperative Society, Group-Viii, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Toddy Cooperative Society, Group-Viii, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cheruku Ranga Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Chetti Komuraiah, Vs The Station House Officer/Sub-Inspector of Police

Chintham Reddy Shekar Reddy Sekhar Reddy, Vs The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissoner, Enforcement

M/s. Jahnavi Enterprises, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University

Dogga v. George Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal