Disposed

Toddy Tappers Co- Operative Society v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jan 2024WP/62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with a writ petition challenging the suspension of a toddy shop license due to adulteration. The court noted that the principle raised could be covered by a prior order in W.P. No. 33139 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 11.12.2023 passed in W.P. No. 33139 of 2023.

Toddy Tappers Co- Operative Society Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 62 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Toddy Tappers Co- Operative Society, Uppttgud?, Rep by- its.^President, J.Chdndra Mohan Goud, S/o, Sattaiah, age about^{48 years,TICS, Uppuguda,} O/o ,H. No. 8- 7- 466/4, near uppuguda Railway^{Station, Uppuguda,} Hyderabad.

¶9

2 J.- Chandra Mohan Goud, S/o, Sattaiah, age about 48^years,TICS, Uppuguda, O/o, H. No. B- 7- 466/4, near uppuguda^{RailwayStation,} uppuguda' Hyderabad

¶10

...pETrroNERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Prohibition and^Excise Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad^- 50m22.

¶13

The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Prohibition and Excise Complex, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶14

The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Department, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Station House Officer, Chatrinaka Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewilh, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, direction, or Order, more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of tlre 3rd^Respondentin issuing Proceedings Cr. No. B5/857/2023/DPandEO(H), dated 27-^{12- 2023} suspending the License for the toddy shop, uppuguda of^{TTCS, Uppuguda of SHO} Charminar Located at the^premises Bearing No. 8- 7- 466/4,^{near uppuguda} Railway station, uppuguda, Hyderabad on the Ground of^{adulterationof Toddy} with Alprazolam without following Principal of Natural Justice^{and contrato the} Provisions of TS Excise Act and direct the respondents^{to restorethe License for} the toddy shop, uppuguda of TTCS, Uppuguda of^{SHOCharminar Locatedat the}

¶19

premises Bearing No.8- 7- 466iA' near^{uppuguda Railwaystation,uppuguda'} Hyderabad

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto direct} the respondents^{to restore the Licence No. 02t2020-211 DP and EO(H),dated31-} 12- 2021 and same^{was extended by the authorities on 13- 06- 2023 till 30- 09-} 2027 vide^{proceedings. No. Cr. No. B5l328l2\23lDPandEo(H)for the toddy shop,} uppuguda of Tlcs,^{Uppugudaof sHo charminarLocatedat the premises Bearing} No. 8- 7- 466/4, near^{uppuguda Railwaystation, uppuguda, Hyderabadby} suspending the operation^{of Proceedings cr. No. B5l857l2O23|DP and Eo (H),} dated 27- 12- 2023.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitionerc:^{SRI M.V-S.SAIKUMAR} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.lTO 3: GP FORPROHIBITION & EXCISE} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos'4 & 5: GP FOR HOME}

¶23

The Court made.the following:^ORDER

¶24

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JI,STICE^{C.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 62 of 2024

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

When the matter is taken up for hearing,^learned counsel for the respective^{parties submitted that the issue} raised in this writ^{petition is squarelycoveredby the order} passed by this Court in^{W.P.No.33139 of 2023, dated} 11.12.2023 and therefore,^{the present writ petition may be}

¶29

disposed of in terms^{of the said order-}

¶30

In view of the above submissions,^{this Writ Petition is}

¶31

disposed of in terms^of the^{order, dated11.12.2023passed}

¶32

by this Court in^{W.P.No.33 139 of 2023. No costs.}

¶33

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any,}

¶34

shall stand closed.

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

SD'- T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTFAR ,/

¶37

U SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To 1. The Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department' Secretariat ' eilidi"i!,'H;cr.tdtiJi, iivo"riuaa, state of re{angana ' 5ooo22'

¶39

z. Yn! if"rh-i.-"-i;;;;:^{P.iii"biifian'o Excis" oepairnent'Prohibition and} - E;;i"" Cil-plex, r'lampairv-Slation Road, Nanipallv' Hyderabad 3 ih;-Disi,i;i^{Froii,oiiiori anf Excise officer,Hvderabad'} ;. iil; [i;ii;; i{;r;;^{om#ilp-.n'uition and Eicise Department'charminar'} Hvderabad.

¶40

5 T#EAiffi House^{off icer, C hatrinakaPol ice Station'.Hyderabad'} 6 d;.-cE E sil^{M.v.s.Snt ruMAR, Advocate} LqP.u9] 7 Y;; dd"i.'c'i iijn-pnoriieitr'oii^{exciSr, nigncburt for the state of} 8. TelaTwonoana. 'i6!'i6 at eP'F-oR Hvderabad. nbr*,tE. IOUTInigh court for the state of relangana' at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶41

1. Two CD^CoPies the order^{in W.P.No.32334 ot 2O23 with the present}

¶42

(Along with a coPY of -^--

¶43

or*.^oto"t'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310112024

ORDER

WP.No.62 ot 2024

1t\E s TAI6
q
z
o 0 3 JAri ?024 6
.t
+ DEs PA T C

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶51

¶52

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32334 of 2023 ORDER:

¶53

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution^of India, is filed seeking the following relief

¶54

"... to issue a Writ, order or direction,^{more particularlyone in} the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring^{theproceedingsof} respondent No.3, vide No.Cr.No.B2l74O 12023 /DP^{& EO (H) dated} 16.17.2023, suspending the licence for retail sale of Toddy of Komatikunta Shop licence of the^petitioner's toddy^shop, Komatikunta on the ground of adulteration of^{toddy,as illegal,} arbitrary, unreasonable without following the^{principles of natural} justice and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana^State Excise Act, 1968 and set aside the same.."

¶55

Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned^{SeniorCounsel} representing Sri N.Vishal, learned^{counsel for the petitioners,} learned Government Pleader for^{Prohibition and Exciseappearing} for respondent Nos.l to 3 and^{pemsed the record.}

¶56

This Writ Petition is filed^{questioning the} proceedings, dated 16.11.2023, issued by^{respondentNo.3} suspending licence No.13, dated^{03.02.2015,of Toddy Shop at} Komatikunta, in respect of^{premisesbearing No. 1 1 - 1 - 1206 &} l2O7 , Komatikunta, Hyderabad,^{on the groundof Adulterationof} Toddy with Alprazolam.

¶57

(]'BR.J s P__r 231.r_202t

¶58

¶59

It is the case of the petitioners that^{petitioner No.2 is} a President of Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society^(TTCS), Komatikunta, which is a Society registered under^{the provisions} of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act,^{1964 (for short,} the Act, 1964J. The case of the petitioners is that^petitioner No.1-Society is formed under the^provisions of the Act,^{7964 for} the purpose of promoting the welfare of the Toddy Tappers^and also its Members. It is further case of the^petitioners that the said society is running for past several^years and it also obtained Licence No. 13, dated O3.O2.2O15, issued by respondent No.3 to run Toddy depot. It is further case of the^petitioners that the entire Members of the petitioner-society are depending on toddy tapping and number of workers working in the above said licensed shop is more than 1O0 and tappers are 50, who are the Members of the Cooperative Society and they are solely depending their livelihood on the earnings of sale of toddy.

¶60

While the matter stood thus, on 02.I1.2023 at 17:30 hours, on creditable information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, along with his staff, has inspected the petitioner-society and having found sale of Toddy in the premises bearing No. 1 1- 1- 1206 &, 1207 , Komatikunta, Hyderabad, and after obtaining necessary permission from the

¶61

(.,BRJ Ep_3231:l_2021

¶62

¶63

authorities concerned, conducted a raid and thereafter samples were sent for chemical examination. On enquiry, it is revealed that the toddy was adulterated and the same was seized in empty bottles and requested to take appropriate action for registration of crime. Acting on the said complaint, a case in^{CrimeNo.305of} 2023 on the file of Habeebnagar Police Station,^{Hyderabad,has} been registered for the offence^punishable under^{Section37 (a) of} the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968^(for short, 'the^{Act, 1968J.} Thereafter, it was alleged that samples^{were sent for chemical} analysis to State Forensic Science Laboratories vide^File No.NAR/1086 12023, dated 09.11.2023, and after testing^{the said} samples, it was found that the said samples^contained "Alprazolam", a psychotropic substance^{alongwith Ethyl Alcohol,} which are prohibited for human consumption.^{Therefore, acting} on the said reports, a show-cause^{notice was issuedin} proceedings Cr.No.B2 I 7 40 / 2023 / DP&'EO^{(H), dated16. 1 1.2023,} suspending licence No.^{1 1, dated O3.O2.2O15,of Toddy Shop at} Komatikunta at^premises bearing^{No.11-1-1206 and l2O7} ' Komatikunta, Hyderabad.

¶64

A reading of the impugned order^{reveals that the} Toddy Shop, Komatikunta of^{TTCS,Komatikunta,premises} bearing No. 11-1-12O6 and 1207,^{Komatikunta,Hyderabad,}

¶65

CvBR.J Np-l2l14_2021

¶66

¶67

Licence No.13, which is valid upto 3O.O9.2O27,^{is suspended on} the ground of Adulteration of Toddy^{with Alprazolam',whichis} injurious to health and contrary to^{Rule 16 of the Telangana} State Excise^(Grant of Licence to^{Sell Toddy, Conditions of} licence and tapping of Excise Trees) Rules,^{2OO7(for short, the} Rules, 2007J and^punishable under^{Section 8 (c) read witt' 22 of} the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic^{SubstancesAct, 1985.}

¶68

Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior^Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently^{contendedthat Rule 3} of the Telangana Excise^{(Powersand Duties)Rules, 1972 issued} in G.O.Ms.No.1094, Revenue, dated^{29.09.1972, confersthe} powers, to arrest without warrant, to seize articles liable^for confiscation and to make searches by any^{ExciseOfficer not} below the rank of Sub- Inspector, any^{Police Officerof and above} the rank of an Inspector and any Officer^{of the Revenue} Department of and above the rank of a^{DeputyTahsildarhaving} jurisdiction over the place may seize and detain any excisable or other articles, which he has reason to^{believe to be liable to} confiscation under the Act or any other^{law for the time being in} force relating to excise revenue and detain and^searchany person upon whom and any vessel, raft, vehicle, animal^package, receptacle or covering in or upon which he may have^reasonable

¶69

CYBR,J rP_32334 2023

¶70

¶71

cause to suspect any such article. Contrary to the^{said Rules,} 1972 tlne Sub Inspector of Police is not authorized to conduct^any search or seizure since the Officer concerned is not^{having any} power and therefore, the impugned order of suspension is^liable to be set aside on the^ground ofnot having^{jurisdiction.}

¶72

Learned Senior Counsel further argued that^the respondent authorities have not followed^{the procedureas} contemplated under the Rules, 2O07,^issued in^{G O.Ms.No.1228,} Revenue (Ex.II) Department, dated^O9.O9.2O07 ,^{to enablethe} petitioners to make a representation for sending three^sample bottles under Rule 27 of the^{Rules,2OO7 for chemical analysis.}

¶73

As per Rule 27 of the Rules, 2OO7^{any Prohibition} and Excise Officer, not below the^{rank of Sub-Inspector of} Prohibition and Excise or Food^{Inspector appointed under the} Prevention of Food Adulteration^{Act, 1954, shall be competent to} inspect at any time and to take^{samples from the toddy} possessed by the licensee or any other^{person, for the purpose of} analysis, such officer shall^{take three (3) samplesin the presence} of the licensee or his agent or other^{personin charge of the} licensed premises or who is found^{sellingtoddy in the said} premises, after conducting a^panchanama.

¶74

(],BR.J lrP a2334_2023

¶75

¶76

According to the learned Senior^{Counsei, the Sub-} Inspector of police is not competent and it is only^{Prohibition and} Excise Inspector not below the rank of^{Sub-Inspectorof} Prohibition and Excise or Food Inspector appointed under^the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 is the^competent authority for the purpose of sending samples for^chemical analysis. In the absence of following^{procedureas prescribed} under the Rules, the entire proceedings are^{vitiated and amounts} to violation of principles of natural^justice and^accordingly, prayed to set aside the impugned order.

¶77

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.4 vehemently contended that any^police officer having received credible information is entitled to set into motion criminal law by registering the crime under Section¹ 54 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the^part of^Sub- Inspector of Police in registering crime, conducting^panchanama and sending samples for chemical analysis, which amount to following the procedure under the Rules and therefore, this Court while exercising the^jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not empowered to suspend the impugned proceedings pending enquiry. He also placed reliance on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in the case of Tappers

¶78

C/BR.J rP_32ll.r-2021

¶79

¶80

Co-operative Society, Maddur v. Superintendent of Excise,

¶81

Mahaboobnagarr, wherein this Court held thus:

¶82

'45. However, we must make it clear that this incidental or ancillary powers cannot be exercised in a routine way or as a matter of course. The licensing authority is bound to exercise the discretion reasonably, bona-fide and without negligence considering the circumstances of the case when such intension suspension is necessary. If it is possible to give an opportunity to the petitioner and the circumstances do not warrant such a drastic step, the licensing authorit5z is bound to afford an opportunity and the power of suspension^pending enquiry should not be exercised as an invariable rule or mode of making an enquiry. Further the suspension pending the enquiry should not be allowed to continue for an unduly^long period. The authorities are bound to complete the enquiry as early as possible and any undue delay when it constitutes abuse of power makes the order liable to be set side. Whether the suspension of licence must be preceded by notice or opportunity must depend upon various factors such^{as, degree} of urgency involved, the duration of suspension, the nature of the breach, public damage to be avoided, and other similar circumstances which warrant an immediate action where it^is not feasible or possible or even advisable to^givean opportunity to the holders of the licences before^passing interim^{orders of} suspension."

¶83

This Court after careful consideration^{of the material} placed on record and the counter-affidavit filed by^the respondents, without expressing^{any opinion on the merits of the} matter whether the respondents have^{followedthe procedurein} accordance with the Rules, 1972 or^{Sub-Inspectorof Policeis}

¶84

'^{tqg (z) (ttc)}

¶85

CYaR..I $D_32334_2021

¶86

¶87

having jurisdiction under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules,^{1972 framed tn} G.O.Ms.No.1094, Revenue, dated 29.O9.1972, and^sincethe petitioner is having statutory remedy of appeal under Section⁶³ (1) of the Act, 1968, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to file an appeal/ revision, as may be available, under the provisions of the Act, 1968 and in case^{the petitionersfiles} any appealfrevision, the same shall be disposed of^{by the} competent authority, within a period of four^{(4) weeks from the} date of hling of such appeal/ revision. The^{impugnedproceedings} issued by respondent No.3 vide Cr.No.B2/74O/2O23/DP^{&' EO} (H), dated 16.11.2023, are suspended for a^period of two⁽²⁾ weeks to enable the petitioners to file an appeal/revision^before the competent authority. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶88

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ^petition

¶89

shall stand closed.

¶90

JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶91

Date:LL.12.2023 Note:

¶92

Issue C.C.by tomorrow (B/o) WL

Toddy Tappers Co- Operative Society v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toddy Tappers Co- Operative Society 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

Smt.S.K.Afroz Begum, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Jaffar Sharif Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Ashoka Travels Vs The Board of Control for Cricket in India

Rachamalla Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Avula Krishna Sagar Vs The State of Telangana

Amer Khan, Vs The State of Telangana