Disposed

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Ttcs) v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Jun 2024WP/11739/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the suspension of a toddy shop license. The court held that since the case involved adulteration with a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, it directed the petitioner to file an appeal/revision under Section 63(1) of the Excise Act, 1968 instead of granting stay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal/revision under Section 63(1) of the Excise Act, 1968. Liberty to file stay application before competent authority granted.

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Ttcs)… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PE TITION NO:1'1739 oF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Toddy Tappers cooperative Society (TTCS), Bhoiguda, Represented bv its President. Ma,am Anaianeyytrl_e_ou'O Sii,. dii.irprthi Goud, Ase. 58 years Occ. Business nyo. u'No.'+oa/e4 Fti fi" ;e Karoor Vyshya Bank, Easi Hanuman Nagar, Boduppat, nangl n"ooii iji.tr".t.

¶10

...PETITIoNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telanoana, represented by its principal Secretary, prohibition .^gp! [1cise.^{Depa rtirent,s-;ret; ;i;t B;'itdiig r'' H1"d"} r, oro z. r ne uommrssroner. prohibition and Excise,-prohibition and Excise comprex, ^^{!.ampglty Station Rbad,Namprrrv,-nvd"eilil."'"'}

¶13

The District^{prohibition'anA} Eici# Cjific"i-diunaerabad.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Oa"Ot i r.frb* poiJJ'b?tion, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 0t rhe constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court. may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ decraring the proceedings issued by the respondent No. 3 vide cr. No. B1r133gt2o17tDp and Eo (s), dated 25-04-2024, suspending the ricense of retair sare of roddy of Bhoiguda shop ricense of the petitioner's society, without waiting for the period shown in the show cause notice, and on the same date of issuance of the show cause notice, is nothing but arbitrary, illegar, nu and void and viorative of principres of naturar justice and arso violative of Articres 14, 'rg and 21 0t the constitution of rndia and arso contrary to the provisions of TS Excise Act,^.196g and set aside the same.

I I i !

lA NO: 1 oF 2024

Petition under section 15 r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 vide Cr. No. 811133912017/DP and EO (S) dated 25_O4_2O24

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.VENUMADHAV counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 To 3: Gp FoR pRoHlBriloN ExcrsE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Gp FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

-7

¶24

HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.11739 OF 2024

¶26

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶27

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by respondent No.3 - District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Secunderabad, vide proceedings in Crime

¶28

No.B'l/1339/2017IDP&EO(S) dated 25.04.2024, whereby the licence of the petitioner Society was suspended.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a show cause notice was issued on 25.04.2024 and the impugned suspension order was also passed on the same day i.e., 25.04.2024, as such, there is violation of principles of natural^justice and proviso to Section 31 (1) (e) of the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Excise Act, 1968'). lt is submitted that toddy shop of the petitioner Society was raided by the lnspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, who is not a competent authority, and it is only the concerned Prohibition and Excise lnspector who can raid and register a case under the provisions of the Excise Act, 1968. Learned counsel referred to the order passed in W.P.No.33139 of 2023 dated 11.12.2023 and requested the sarne order to be passed in this writ petition also.

¶30

¶31

BVR,J W.P.No. I l7l9 2024

¶32

Learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleader for Prohibitionand} Excise submitted that against^{an order passed under Section 31 of the} Excise Act, 1968, cancelling^{or suspending the licence,there is a} statutory remedy of appeal^{under Section 63 (1)of the ExciseAct,} 1968, and thus, in view^{of the effective alternative remedyavailable to} the petitioner, the writ^{petitionis not maintainable.}

¶33

Heard the learned counsel^{for the petitionerand the learned} Assistant Government Pleader^{for Prohibitionand Excise.}

¶34

The show cause notice vide^{proceedingsinCrime} No.B1/1339/2017lDP&EO(S) dated^{25.O4.2024was issued calling} upon the^petitioner to explain^{within seven days from the date of} receipt of the notice as to why^{licence shall} not^{be cancelled for} contravention of the Telangana^{State Excise (Grant of Licence to sell} toddy, Conditions of licence and^{tapping of ExciseTrees) Rules, 2007} (for shod,^'the Rules, 2007).

¶35

ln the show cause notice, it is^{allegedthat the lnspectorof} Police, Gandhi Nagar Police Station,^{Hyderabad, reportedthat on} 02.11.2023 at about 20:00 P.M., he received a^{confession-cum-seizure} panchanama from the Sub-lnspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar Police Station, conducted on 02.11.2023 at^{20:00 P.M} at^{H.No.6-3-5,New} Bhoiguda, Hyderabad, by^{securing two panchas;} on^credible

./ .l- --

t}VR.J W.P.No.I t7l9²⁰¹⁴

¶40

information^{about sale of adulterated toddy in the above address' the} officials entered^{into the toddy shop and foundone personby name} Mallam Anjaneyulu^{Goud' the President of the petitioner Society' and} one Nagelli^{Naresh conductingbusiness vrde licence No'Sdated} 31.12.2014^{and seizedthree (03) cases (each case containing12} bottles)^{from toddy boxes and the samewere transferred to the plastic} bottles^{and sent the samples to Telangana StateForensicScience} Laboratory^{(TSFSL)for further investigationand registereda case in} Crime No.299^{of 2023 under Section 37-A of the Excise Act' 1968'}

¶41

7 . lt is further^{statedin the show cause notice that as per the} report of^{the TSFSL vide File No'NAR/109812023 daled 25'11'2023'} the seized^{materialcontains "Alprazolam",a psychotropicsubstance} along with^{Ethyl Alcohol, thus, it is allegedthat the Presidentof the} petitioner Society^{is involvedin adulteration of toddy with Alprazolam} and contravened^{Rule 16 of the Rules' 2007 and punishableunder} Section 8^{(c) read wilh 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic} Substances^{Act, 1985 (for short, .the NDPSAct') and it calls for} initiation of^{proceedingsunder Section 31 (1) (b) of the Excise Act'} 1968.

¶42

lt appears,^{along with the show causenoticedated 25'04'2024'} the impugned^{suspension order dated 25'04'2024 was passed stating}

¶43

¶44

¶45

BVR,J W.P.No.I l7l9 2024

¶46

that the licence of the^petitioner is^{kept under suspension, pending} enquiry, in the interest of^{public health.}

¶47

lt is stated that in similar matter, order^{dated11.12.2023 was} passed by this Court in W.P.No.33'l 39 of 2023 directing the^petitioners therein to file an appeal/revision under^Section 63^{(1) of the Excise} Act, 1968, and on such appealirevision^{being filed, the competent} authority was directed to^pass orders^{within four weeks there from. The} learned Single Judge suspended the impugned^{order passedtherein} for a period of two weeks so as to enable^{the petitioners therein to file} an appeal/revision before the competent^authority.

¶48

Learned counsel for the^petitioner submitted^{that similar relief of} suspension of the impugned^proceedings as^{was granted in} W.P.No.33139 ot 2023 be^granted in the^{present writ petition so that} steps can be taken by the^petitioner to file^{appeal/revision under} Section 63 (1)of the Excise Act, 1968. However,^{this Court is not} inclined to grant the same relief to the^petitioner herein as^the allegation against the^petitioner herein is regarding^{adulteration of} toddy with Alprazolam which is a^{psychotropic substanceunder the} provisions of the NDPS Act and the Rules made thereunder-

¶49

ln view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file appeal/revision under Section 63 (1) of the Excise Act,

¶50

¶51

BVR,J W.P.No.I1739 2024

¶52

On such^{appeal/revisionbeing filed, the competentauthority} shall^pass orders^{on meritswithin a period of four (04) weeksfrom the} date of filing of such^{appeal/revision, without being influenced by any} of the observations^{made in this order.The petitioner is entitled to} raise all legal^{issues includingthe competenceof the law and order} police in conducting raid,^{investigation,collection of samples'} registration of crime^{etc., underthe provisions of the Excise Act,'t968,} before the competent^{authority.The petitioneris also given libertyto} file stay application^{before the competentauthority' No order as to} costs.

¶53

As a sequel thereto,^{miscellaneous applications, if any,pending} in the writ^{petition stand closed.}

¶54

SD/. P.GOWRI^SHANKAR ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

SECTIO OFFICER

¶57

To 1. The Principal^{Secretary, Prohibitionand ExciseDepartment' Secretariat}

¶58

, +illlqt; lSS11":Bf;ili,Sl^{::5tt-1?sprohibitionand Excise comp|ex'} ' N;;;ily strtion io"o' Nampallv, Hvderabad' : it" 6Giii"t^{ProhibitionanJ eicisti oificer'Secunderabad'} ; 5. iiiE One 5i"iii" CC to^{SRI K.VENU} 1;;^gni1rulfaltl lSy*13'i3?t3i'"'' tt_vaeraolo A rwo ccs to Gp ron^{pnilnibiiioii EicisE: Hish oourtfor the state of} - iJantana, at HYderabad' [OUT]

¶59

?. +ff'bt!'i;tp,rofHtirr/,lE,^{High court for the State of Telansana,at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶60

Two CD^CoPies

PSK.

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

I I

DATED:0 510612024

ORDER

WP.No.11739 of 2024

1 pE SrAIq o
(
q
o) c
I B i\ifi z$q
t ,..
D -:-q rr.iC'

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶70

t\t\r<br>

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Ttcs) v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Ttcs) v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vankudoth Veeranna @ Veeru Vs State of Telangana

Geekuru Latha Vs The State of Telangana

Boya Shaik Shavali Vs The State of Telangana

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Tics) Vs The State of Telangana

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Tics) Vs The State of Telangana

D. Rajashekar Goud Vs the State of Telangana