Excise officers have no authority to stop mere sale of jaggery & alum= PETITIONER RESPONDENT M/S. SRI SAI RAM TRADERS, R.R. DIST VS S.H.O., R.R. DIST & 4 OT - http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=WP&mno=3890&year=2013

Excise officers have no authority to stop mere sale of jaggery & alum =
The action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to carry on business in the sale of black jaggery and alum; and in placing restrictions on the petitioner carrying on business in the sale and purchase of black jaggery, alum and other kirana items; is questioned in this Writ Petition, as being arbitrary and illegal.=

The sale of black jaggery and alum by itself does not violate any provision of law nor is it an offence under any enactment. It is only if it is used for preparation of illicit distilled liquor, can the petitioner be indicted and proceeded against. In the present case, no such allegation is made by the respondents.
Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the respondents are not interfering with the petitioner’s business of sale and purchase of black jaggery and alum, the Writ Petition is closed. 
It is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from taking action, in accordance with law, in case the petitioner is found to have committed any offence under any law in force.
WP 3890 / 2013

WPSR 20618 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
M/S. SRI SAI RAM TRADERS, R.R. DIST  VSS.H.O., R.R. DIST & 4 OT
PET.ADV. : PRABHAKAR RAORESP.ADV. : GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE
SUBJECT: EXCISE (MISC.MATTERS)DISTRICT:  RANGA REDDY
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

WRIT PETITION No.3890 of 2013

ORDER:           
The action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to carry on business in the sale of black jaggery and alum; and in placing restrictions on the petitioner carrying on business in the sale and purchase of black jaggery, alum and other kirana items; is questioned in this Writ Petition, as being arbitrary and illegal.
When the matter came up earlier, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise sought time to obtain instructions. Today the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the respondents are not interfering with the petitioner’s business of sale of alum and black jaggery; these two ingredients are generally used for preparation of illicit distilled liquor; and, in case the petitioner is found later to be carrying on any such activities, the respondents would take action in accordance with law.
The sale of black jaggery and alum by itself does not violate any provision of law nor is it an offence under any enactment. It is only if it is used for preparation of illicit distilled liquor, can the petitioner be indicted and proceeded against. In the present case, no such allegation is made by the respondents.
Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the respondents are not interfering with the petitioner’s business of sale and purchase of black jaggery and alum, the Writ Petition is closed. 
It is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from taking action, in accordance with law, in case the petitioner is found to have committed any offence under any law in force. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

 

______________________________

                                            (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
22.02.2013
kkm







                                                                                      



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515