GEMINI DISTILLERIES PVT LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE A P HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for the issue of a Writ particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order dated 25-2-1983 passed by the Commissioner of Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, cancelling the licence of the petitioner in Form D2 is illegal and unenforceable.

(2.) The petitioner is a private Limited Company known as 'M/s. Gemini Distilleries Private Limited' situate at Sathamarai Village, Gaganpahad, Rangareddy District. The Conpany was granted a licence in Form D2 on 27-9-1979 to put up a Distillery for manufacture of Indian Made Foreign liquor i. e., Whisky. Brandy. Rum and Gin, under the A. P. Distillery Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The licence was renewed from year to year. For the Excise year 1982-83 the licence was renewed on 30th September. 1982. On 13-8-1982 the 1 str espondent allotted 12,000 b.Is, of rectified spirit to the petitioner- Company for manufacture of liquors. The lables on various liquors bottled and submitted by the petitioner-Company for marketing the commodities were not approved by the Director of Distilleries and Breweries Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein. He insisted on the petitioner- Company to submit the lables with the words 'Not for sale in India only printed on the lables on the ground that the letter of intent permitting the establishment of the distillery was granted to the petitioner-Company on condition that it should export all its products to foreign countries. The petitioner Company not 4having complied with the direction of the 2nd respondent. the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent.

(3.) It is urged by Sri Koka Raghava Rao. learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent on 25-2-1983 in purported exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Condition No. 15 of the licence in Form D2 granted to the petitioner under the Rules, that no such cendition was in fact incorporated in the licence renewed in favour of the petitioner for the Excise year 1982-83 and that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is therefore without jurisdiction.