TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 01.10.2007 which was valid up to 30.09.2017. After verifying the boundaries of the shop and finding it tallying with those mentioned in the licence, the officers collected small quantity of toddy from each bottle into a clean plastic bucket and then took 5 ml. of the same into a clean test tube and tested the product sold there with prescribed chemicals in the presence of the panchas. The chemical test carried out by the inspecting officials has revealed that the product is free from adulteration of 'Chloral Hydrate'. However, on suspicion, the inspecting officers have drawn three samples of toddy under the cover of a panchnama and handed over the same to the Station House Officer, Kodangal Police Station, for taking further action in the matter. The Station House Officer, Kodangal Police Station registered a case in P.C.R.No. 984/2013-14 on 10.10.2013 under Rule 27(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licenses Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 against the President of the TCS toddy shop and produced the case papers and property before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodangal, with a request to send one of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Reddy (cited 1 supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment in Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society v. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Enforcement 2003(2) ALT 747, where the learned Single Judge of this Court held that any order passed without putting the licence- holder on notice and providing him an opportunity before suspending or cancelling his licence, is liable to be treated to have been vitiated. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has very spiritedly opposed this Writ Petition. She has drawn my attention to the judgment rendered by a Full Bench in Tappers Co-operative Society, Maddur v. Superintendent of Excise, Mahaboobnagar (1986) 1 Andh W R 387. The majority opinion is rendered by Justice P. Kodanda Ramayya in the above case, while the Chief Justice K. Madhava Reddy has rendered a dissenting opinion. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is right in pointing out that in paragraph 41 of the majority opinion, it is held that the power of suspension pending enquiry is a concomitant or adjunct to grant of licence, but however, the same shall be used in appropriate exercise. The contention canvasse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....license is granted to him. The suspension resorted to in such cases is a substantive measure. It has a punitive effect, but however, suspension pending enquiry will not have any punitive characteristics. It is, no doubt, true that during the suspension pending enquiry period also, the business operations will come to a grinding halt, but nonetheless, it will be only for too short a period. The enquiry will have to be conducted duly following the procedure prescribed therefor and also by observing the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of suspension pending enquiry cannot be treated as having any punitive effect on the licensee. However, Dr. Narasimha has pointed out that the circumstances must warrant exercise of power. Availability of power is one aspect of the matter and its exercise in a fair and proper manner is altogether another aspect of the matter. I am conscious that every power is an extremely limited power conferred in the hands of the competent authority either by the statute- maker or the one, who has been authorized to make subordinate legislation. Therefore, such powers are conferred upon certain hierarchy of officers out of trust and confidence tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to communicate, in writing, the factum of drawl of sample from the shop of the licensee, but the impugned order does not make any reference to any such communication. In my opinion, this is a failure on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the suspension order dated 03.02.2014, at best, can be understood as the notice delivered to the licensee that the sample has been drawn from out of his licensed shop premises. In such cases where no intimation relating to drawl of sample has been delivered to the licensee, the seven-day period built into the aforementioned portion of Rule 27(1) of the Rules, commences with the date of receipt of the order of suspension. Where the factum of drawl of sample has been noted, within seven days period, if a licensee were to apply for analysis of the second sample, the Excise Superintendent cannot refuse to either receive any such application or act thereon by securing the analysis of the second sample. It is time for the Excise officials to realize that the delay in intimation of the drawl of the samples is likely to cause enormous benefit to the licensee as passage of time is likely to impact upon the accuracy of the result of the chemical analys....