This order disposed of a writ petition filed by a jaggery merchant challenging frequent interference in his business. The court referred a Full Bench precedent and quashed the petition dismissing the claim for a declaration.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
W.P. No.17583 of 2011
DATED: 24.06.2011
Between:
M/s.Sri Mahesh Kirana & Jaggery Merchant .. Petitioner
And
1. The Station House Officer, Proh. And Excise
2. The Station House Officer
4. The Station House Officer, L&O ..Respondents
O R D E R:-
This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Sri Mahesh Kirana & Jaggery Merchant, represented by its Proprietor, Kotta Mahesh with a prayer to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with its business as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner has been carrying on business in Black Jaggery and Alum on the basis of the certificate issued by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Peddapalli vide GRN No.KRM/03/0/2251. It is the version of the petitioner that carrying on business in Black Jaggery and Alum is not an offence, and therefore, frequent interference of the respondents in the business carried on by the petitioner is causing much inconvenience to day-to-day business activities of the petitioner. It is also the version of the petitioner that there is no prohibition for sale, produce and transportation of Black Jaggery and Alum
When the writ petition is taken up for admission, the Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise took notice on behalf of the 1st respondent.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding a valid licence to carry on the business in Black Jaggery and Alum and therefore, frequent interference of the respondents in the business of the petitioner is causing much prejudice to it.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that a Full
Bench of this Court in Ganesh Traders Dharmpuri, Karimnagar v. District Collecto r[1] , has held that Black Jaggery when it is reasonably found to be meant for manufacture of I.D. Liquor is liable to be seized by the Excise Officials.
So long as the petitioner carries on the business in accordance with the permit, the respondents cannot interfere with its legal business. Once the petitioner contrives the permission granted to it and diverts the Black Jaggery and Alum for the purpose of preparing illicit liquor, the respondents have got every right to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 24.06.2011 bcj
[1]
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganesh Traders Dharmpuri, Karimnagar v. District CollectorReferred¶17
Ganesh Traders Dharmpuri, Karimnagar v. District Collecto r
M/s. Sri Mahesh Kirana & Jaggery Merchant
The Station House Officer, Proh. And Excise
The Station House Officer
The Station House Officer, L&O
Ashutosh Mohunta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
