ORDER: (Per A. Gopal Reddy, J.) 1. Toddy Co-operative Society, Toddy Group of Khammam District at Khammam and some of the individual members of the Society filed these writ petitions seeking writs of certiorari calling for records pertaining to show cause notice dt. 22-3-2007 as to why toddy shop of TCS,Khammam Nos.1,3,6,8,10,12,14 to 20 should not be cancelled under Section 31(2) of the A.P. Excise Act,1968 and orders of the Government dt. 9-11-2009 dismissing the revision petition filed by the Society upholding the orders Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Khammam as confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal and Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and to quash the same by issuing a necessary direction to the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Khammam District at Khammam to issue licenses to the Toddy Depot, Khammam and shop Nos.2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13, whose licenses were cancelled earlier. 2. Relevant facts shorn of details, which gave rise to filing these writ petitions, are as under: 3. TTCS group of Khammam consisting of 20 toddy shops and one toddy depot were given licenses for the period from 9-5-2002 to 31-3-2007. On 21-6-2006, the toddy depot and toddy shop Nos.2,4, 5, 7,9,11 and 13 were inspected by the officers and staff of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Task Force, Khammam and Station House Officer, Khammam. They found the toddy was adulterated with Chloral Hydrate. On registering crimes, licenses were suspended. Later, show cause notices were issued as to why their licences should not be cancelled, while sending sample for chemical analysis. On receipt of the report from the Chemical Examiner on 29-6-2006 opining that the toddy is adulterated with Chloral Hydrate, WP No.13480/2006 was filed before this court seeking a direction to the Excise Officials to send second sample bottle to the independent laboratory ie., State Govt. Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad. On disposal of the said writ petition on 11-7-2006, second sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who analyzed and reported, through his report dt. 5-12-2006, that the sample contains Chloral Hydrate and Alprozolam. As both the Chemical Examiners opined that the toddy was adulterated, licenses were cancelled by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Khammam, vide orders dt. 1-2-2007. Apart from canceling the licenses, they laid charge sheets against the licensees before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Court) at Khammam. 5-12-2006, that the sample contains Chloral Hydrate and Alprozolam. As both the Chemical Examiners opined that the toddy was adulterated, licenses were cancelled by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Khammam, vide orders dt. 1-2-2007. Apart from canceling the licenses, they laid charge sheets against the licensees before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Court) at Khammam. Learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused by separate judgments holding that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. On such acquittal, the President of TTCS, Khammam submitted a representation on 7-9-2007 to revive the licence of toddy shop Nos.2, 4, 7, 9, 11 and 13 to the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Khammam, who dismissed the same on 20-11-2007. Against the dismissal of the representation, the President, TTCS, Khammam and individual licensees whose licenses were cancelled, filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal, who dismissed the same on 27-10-2007. Aggrieved by the same, the toddy depot as well as the licensees of the above shops filed second appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. On dismissal of the second appeal by the Commissioner on 4-3-2008, revisions were filed before the Government. On the Government dismissing the revision, the present writ petitions ie., WP Nos.24883/2009, 25228/2009, 25103/2009, 25101/2009,25075/2009, 25076/2009 and 25077/2009. Whereas questioning the show cause notice dt. 22-3-2007 for cancellation of licenses in respect of toddy depot and shop Nos.1, 3,6,8,10,12 and 14 to 20 under Section 31(2) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short “the Excise Act”), WP No.24674/2007 is filed. 4. The Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society, Toddy Group of Khamma, at Khammam represented by its President Vaddeboina Krishna Rao claiming that he was elected as President of the Society filed WP No.24547/2007 complaining non-consideration of representation dt. 12-11-2007 whereunder it was requested to revive/review/renewal/grant toddy group, Khammam shop Nos.1 to 20 and Depot licence for the excise year from 1-10-2007 to 30-9-2012 in respect of Toddy Group, Khammam town of Khammam District as per the amended rules, namely, Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to sell toddy, conditions of Licence and tapping of excise trees) Rules,2007, issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228, Revenue (Ex.II) dt. 19-9-2007 and for a consequential direction to grant TTCS licence to toddy group of Khammam. 5. 19-9-2007 and for a consequential direction to grant TTCS licence to toddy group of Khammam. 5. Sri Vaddeboina Krishna Rao got himself impleaded as respondent No.7 in W.P.No.24674/2007 as per orders of this court dt.22-10-2009 passed in WPMP No.27837/2009. Whereas the President G. Raghavaiah representing the Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society, Toddy Group, Khammam filed W.P.M.P No.2026/2008 in WP No.24547/2007 to implead himself as party respondent, which was ordered on 2-2-2010. 6. Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions except WP No.24547/2007 contended that criminal cases registered against the toddy depot and some of the members of the society, as referred to above, were ended in acquittal after analyzing the evidence of panch witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 who have not supported the case of the prosecution for drawing samples from the toddy depot as well as the shop and the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the case property from the possession of the accused, hence the report given by the Chemical Analyst basing upon the alleged seizure opining that the toddy is adulterated with chloral hydrate cannot be taken into consideration for cancellation of licences. In view of the same, rejection of the representation filed for renewal of licences by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent is per se illegal and contrary to law. Further the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal as well as the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad have not taken into consideration the acquittal order passed by the criminal court. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the following judgments: 1. G.M. TANK V. STATE OF GUJARAT (2006) 5 SCC 446 2. M. PAUL ANTHONY V. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD (1999) 3 SCC 679 = AIR 1999 SC 1416 3. A.D.S.SARMA V. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, AMALAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2002(5) ALD 520 4. R.YADAIAH V. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, RANGAREDDY 2002(6) ALT 288 He further submitted that Section 37 of the Excise Act deals with penalty for adulteration by licensed vendor or manufacture. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 in WP No.24674/2007, it is admitted that the licensees of toddy shop Nos.2,4,5,7,9,11 and 13 and toddy depot were cancelled for indulging in adulteration and other licensees of 13 shops of the society are liable for cancellation under Section 31(2) of the Excise Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 in WP No.24674/2007, it is admitted that the licensees of toddy shop Nos.2,4,5,7,9,11 and 13 and toddy depot were cancelled for indulging in adulteration and other licensees of 13 shops of the society are liable for cancellation under Section 31(2) of the Excise Act. Clubbing of all the toddy licensees against whom there was no allegation of adulteration treating them on par with licensees of shops who are adulterated, in the absence of any contravention pointed out, cancellation of licenses amounts to violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. To buttress the said submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in ONKAR LAL BAJAJ V. UNION OF INDIA (2003) 2 SCC 673 . Sri Vaddeboina Krishna Rao, who filed implead petition (WPMP No.27837/2009) in WP No.24674/2007 cannot support the action of the officials and claim licenses for the members as claimed in WP No.24547/2007. He further contended that learned counsel Sri B. Sai Ram Goud who filed WP No.14998/2006 earlier before this court representing the Society by its President G.Raghavaiah cannot appear for the party, namely, Vaddeboina Krishna Rao, who filed WP No.24547/2007 for grant of licenses to the members, which is detrimental to the interest of the Society. In the absence of any material showing that he was elected as President, he cannot represent the Society. He further contended that counter part agreement entered by the petitioners will not dis-entitle them to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 31 as ultra vires. 7. Sri B. Sai Ram Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.24547/2007 and the respondent No.7 in WP No.24674/2007, who has been impleaded as per orders passed in WPMP No.27837/2009 contended that earlier Toddy co-operative Society, Toddy Group of Khammam at Khammam represented by its President G. Raghavaiah filed WP No.14998/2006 questioning the orders suspending the licenses of toddy shop Nos.1,3,6,8,10,12,14 to 20 who were not indulged in adulteration and obtained orders from this court suspending the suspension order dt. 8-7-2006 on 25-7-2006, whereunder this court observed that the suspension of the suspension order shall not preclude the respondents to initiate enquiry in accordance with law. 8-7-2006 on 25-7-2006, whereunder this court observed that the suspension of the suspension order shall not preclude the respondents to initiate enquiry in accordance with law. On cancellation of the licenses for toddy shop Nos.2,4,5,7,9,11 and 13 for indulging in adulteration, licenses of 13 toddy shops, which were not inspected and not found adulteration (covered by WP No.14998/2006) were extended up to 30-9-2007 subject to the orders to be passed pursuant to the show cause notice dt. 22-3-2007. As per Section 29 of the A.P. Excise Act, counter-part agreement has to be executed by the President and its members in whose favour licenses were granted and are to abide by the conditions of the license and the Excise Act and the Rules which govern the said grant of license and they cannot question the Act now. Questioning the show cause notice issued on the report of the Chemical Examiner who analyzed the first sample bottle, writ petitions were filed before this court for sending the second samples of 7 toddy shops and toddy depot. In view of the cancellation of licenses of 7 toddy shops and toddy depot and issuing show cause notice to the remaining toddy shop licensees, it necessitated to file WP No.24547/2007 to consider and issue licenses as per the amended rules issued in G.O.Ms. No.1228 Revenue (Ex.II) Department dt. 19-9-2007. Rule 11 of A.P. Excise (Tapping of trees and toddy slops—special conditions of licence) Rules, 1969 provides issuance of tapping licenses. In view of the same, members who are not involved in adulteration are entitled to grant licenses and necessary direction should be issued to grant licenses as per the amended rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228 dt. 19-9-2007 by allowing WP No.24547/2007 contending that the petitioners in other writ petitions cannot claim privilege or licenses to do business, having been contravened the conditions of the licenses earlier in the year 2000, which was challenged by the Society before this court in TODDY TAPPERS CO-OP.SOCIETY GROUP V. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINENDENT 2001(5) ALT 793 (DB). 8. 19-9-2007 by allowing WP No.24547/2007 contending that the petitioners in other writ petitions cannot claim privilege or licenses to do business, having been contravened the conditions of the licenses earlier in the year 2000, which was challenged by the Society before this court in TODDY TAPPERS CO-OP.SOCIETY GROUP V. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINENDENT 2001(5) ALT 793 (DB). 8. Learned Government Pleader for Excise contended that the petitioner-Society in WP No.24547/2007 claimed that members who are no way connected with adulteration of toddy passed a resolution removing G. Raghavaiah and other managing committee members on 23-9-2007 and elected a new body with Vaddeboina Krishna Rao as President is not known to the Department and in the counter-affidavit filed by respondents in WP No.24547/2007, the respondents have denied about Vaddeboina Krishna Rao filing any resolution electing him as President of TCS, Khammam Group. When he filed a representation on 12-11-2007 he was called upon to submit the record in support of his claim and he replied that records were submitted to the High Court in WP No.24547/2007 and requested for time to submit the same, but no such records were available evidencing that he was elected as President. He further contended that the finding of the criminal court cannot be taken into consideration for setting aside the orders passed canceling the toddy licenses. When the Society itself volunteered to send the second sample bottle to independent laboratory, it cannot take advantage of the acquittal order and it cannot contend that no seizure was effected by the excise officials by drawing samples on the relevant date. He further contended that action taken under Section 31 of the A.P. Excise Act is independent of proceedings under Section 37. Under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the authority may cancel or suspend for any of the contraventions laid down in Clauses (a) to (e), whereas under sub-section (2) of Section 31, licence or permit held by any person is cancelled under clause (a) (b) (c) and (d) of sub-section (1), the authorities may cancel any other licence granted or permit issued. Section 37 deals with penalty for adulteration by a licensed vendor or manufacturer and it is a criminal liability and both are independent and disjunctive proceedings. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the following judgments. 1. Section 37 deals with penalty for adulteration by a licensed vendor or manufacturer and it is a criminal liability and both are independent and disjunctive proceedings. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the following judgments. 1. TODDY TAPPERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KOTHAKOTA V. THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, MAHABOOBNAGAR & OTHERS 1986 (2) ALT (NRC) 19 2. STATE OF A.P. V. B.V.NARAYANA 1990(1) ALT 415 3. K.P.REDDY V. SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., REVENUE (EXCISE-III) DEPARTMENT 2005(3) ALD 599 4. J. VISWANATHA REDDY V. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. 2008(4) ALD 179 = 2008 (4) ALT 388 He further contended that when the petitioners entered into a counter-part agreement agreeing to abide by the Excise Act and rules made thereunder cannot challenge the rules or the license conditions by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.M. JOSEPH V. STATE OF KERALA (2001) 10 SCC 578 9. In view of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether cancellation of licenses for shop Nos.2,4,5,7,9,11 and 13 and toddy depot following the departmental proceedings under the provisions of the Excise Act and Rules are liable to be set-aside or licenses to be restored as claimed in view of the acquittal order passed by the criminal court in CC Nos.316, 296, 298, 294, 315,295 and 297 & 298 of 2007 respectively? 2. Whether show cause notice dt.22-3-2007 issued for cancellation of licenses under Section 31(2) of the Excise Act in respect of toddy shop Nos.1,3,6,8,10,12 and 14 to 20 is liable to be set-aside by declaring Sec. 31(2) of the Excise Act as un-constitutional? 3. Whether members of the Society who are no way connected with adulteration of toddy are entitled to grant of licenses in pursuance of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to sell toddy, conditions of Licence and tapping of excise trees) Rules, 2007, issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228, Revenue (Ex.II) dt. 19-9-2007? 10. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is convenient to consider the submissions in the context of the statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this court about the right of a citizen to carry on business in intoxicants, which is considered as a pernicious trade. 11. Section 13 of the Excise Act prohibits the manufacture, sale etc. 11. Section 13 of the Excise Act prohibits the manufacture, sale etc. , of excisable articles (alcohol, liquor for human consumption or any intoxicating drug) except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted by such officer as may be prescribed. Under sub-section (2) of Section 13, a licence granted shall extend and cover servants and other persons employed by the licensee and acting on his behalf. Section 15 prohibits sale or buying of intoxicant except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted in that behalf, provided that person having a licence to draw toddy from an excise tree, may sell such toddy to a person licensed to buy toddy under the Excise Act without obtaining a licence for such sale but subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Commissioner may specify. Section 28 of the Excise Act provides for grant of a licence in the prescribed proforma. License shall be issued on payment of such fee or for such period, subject to the restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed. Section 31 deals with power of the authority to cancel or suspend licence, which reads as under: 31 Power to cancel or suspend licence etc. (1) Subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed, the authority granting any licence or permit under this Act may cancel or suspend it irrespective of the period to which the licence or permit relates. (a) x x x x x; or (b) in the event of any breach by the holder thereof, or by any of his servants or by any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, of any of the terms and conditions thereof; or (c) if the holder thereof or any of his servants or any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, is convicted of any offence under this Act, or (d) x x x x: Provided that no licence or permit shall be cancelled or suspended unless the holder thereof is given an opportunity of making his representation against the action proposed. (2) Where a licence or permit held by any person is cancelled under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), the authority aforesaid may cancel any other licence granted or permit issued to such persons under this Act, or under the Opium Act, 1878. (3) x x x x Section 37 prescribes penalties for adulteration of intoxicants by the licensed vendor or manufacturer. It reads as under: 37 Penalty for adulteration, etc. by licensed vendor or manufacturer: Whoever being the holder of a licence for the sale or manufacture of any intoxicant under this Act, or a person in the employ of such holder,_ (a) mixes or permits to be mixed with intoxicant sold or manufactured by him any noxious drug or any foreign ingredient likely to add to its actual or apparent intoxicating quality or strength, or any article prohibited by any rule made under this Act when such admixture does not amount to the offence of adulteration under Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code; or (b) to (e) x x x; (i) in the case of first offence for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend upto three years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees ten thousand but which may extend upto rupees thirty thousand; (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend upto three years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees fifty thousand but which may extend upto rupees one lakh. shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment,_ 12. Andhra Pradesh Excise (Tapping of Trees and Toddy Shops—Special Conditions of Licence) Rules, 1969 (for short “the tapping rules”) were made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred by various provisions of the Excise Act. Rule 4 obliges the licensee to sell toddy drawn from the marked trees alone. It reads as follows: 4 Toddy drawn from marked trees alone to be sold:- (1) The licensee shall possess or sell toddy drawn from the excise trees marked for the shop after payment of tree-tax and tree owners rent thereof. Rule 4 obliges the licensee to sell toddy drawn from the marked trees alone. It reads as follows: 4 Toddy drawn from marked trees alone to be sold:- (1) The licensee shall possess or sell toddy drawn from the excise trees marked for the shop after payment of tree-tax and tree owners rent thereof. In case of group of shops the licensee shall be entitled to transfer the surplus toddy of one shop to another shop within the same group and to sell it but toddy to be transferred shall be covered by a permit issued in Form TS.2 in respect of a licensee holding more than one group of shops in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad or such towns as the Excise Commissioner may specify, and, the shops within all such groups shall be deemed to be included in one group only for the purposes of these rules. (2) Where a licensee of the group of shops in any such city or town or a licensee who has obtained several shops contiguous to each other desires to pool toddy of all shops at one place and distribute it to constituent shops in separate receptacles, instead of transporting direct to all the individual shops, he shall do so after obtaining the prior permission of the Excise Superintendent, if all shops are located in one and the same district of the Deputy Commissioner, if all the shops are located in one excise division and of the Commissioner, if the shops are located in more than one excise division. In such a case, the licensee shall obtain a licence in Form TS 3 for establishing a depot on payment of a fee of rupees one hundred only from the Excise Superintendent concerned and shall maintain accounts in Form TS 3(A). The depot shall ordinarily be established within the area of the group of shops. Transport of toddy from depot to constituent shops shall be under Form TS 3(B). Rule 5 prohibits adulteration of toddy, which reads as under: 5. Adulteration of toddy Prohibited:- The licensee shall not mix in toddy Chloral Hydrate or any other article in the shop or depot or outside, except sugar, nor shall he sell or offer for sale adulterated toddy in any shop. Rule 5 prohibits adulteration of toddy, which reads as under: 5. Adulteration of toddy Prohibited:- The licensee shall not mix in toddy Chloral Hydrate or any other article in the shop or depot or outside, except sugar, nor shall he sell or offer for sale adulterated toddy in any shop. The licensee shall not keep within the premises of the shop Chloral Hydrate or any other article injurious to health, which may be used for adulteration of toddy. 13. Rule 22 obligates the licensee to observe rules and orders issued from time to time by the authorities. It reads as under: 22 Licensee bound to observe rules and orders: Every licensee shall be bound by the rules and orders for the time being in force regarding the safeguarding, marking and tapping of excise trees and rules relating to permits and any other rules or regulations which may be made from time to time in this behalf. 14. Condition No.6 appended to Form TS 5(A)-Licence for tapping of Excise trees issued by the Excise Inspector of the A.P. Excise (Tapping of trees and toddy slops— special conditions of licence) Rules, 1969 reads as under: “The licensee shall not manufacture liquor from toddy and shall not adulterate toddy.” 15. Thus, a reading of the above provisions of the Excise Act together with the tapping rules, the picture which emerges is that the privilege for selling liquor which includes the lease of the shop for an area and licence to sell toddy therein may be granted under the Excise Act and the Rules. 16. The Supreme Court in COVERJEE V. EXCISE COMMISSIONER AIR 1954 SC 220 ; STATE OF ASSAM V. SRISTIKAR AIR 1957 SC 414 ; NAGENDRANATH BORA V. COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION AIR 1958 SC 398 ; HAR SHANKAR V. DY.EXCISE COMMISSIONER (1975) 1 SCC 737 = AIR 1975 SC 1121 and KHODAY DISTILLERIES LIMITED V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1995) 1 SCC 574 held that a citizen has no fundamental right to carry on business in intoxicants, which is considered as a pernicious trade. In HAR SHANKER (15 supra) the Supreme Court held that “writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Art.226 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligations voluntarily incurred”. At the same time, it was observed that the licensees are not precluded from seeking to enforce the statutory provisions govern the contact. 17. In HAR SHANKER (15 supra) the Supreme Court held that “writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Art.226 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligations voluntarily incurred”. At the same time, it was observed that the licensees are not precluded from seeking to enforce the statutory provisions govern the contact. 17. POINT No.1 In G.M. Tank (1 supra), the appellant, G.M. Tank, was charged for offence of acquisition of movable and immovable properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. After holding departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service. A criminal complaint was also lodged against the appellant under Section 5(1) (e) r/w 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, based on same set of facts, charges, evidence and witnesses. The criminal court acquitted the appellant of the said offence by holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant. The said order has not been challenged by the State and has become final. The appellant (charged employee) unsuccessfully challenged the dismissal order before the single Judge of High Court of Gujarat and also before the Division Bench. On further appeal, the Supreme Court held that the investigating officer and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant with the finding that the charge has not been proved. The said judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under those circumstances, it was held that it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. 18. In PAUL ANTHONY (2 supra), the question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case launched on the basis of the same set of facts can be continued simultaneously? 18. In PAUL ANTHONY (2 supra), the question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case launched on the basis of the same set of facts can be continued simultaneously? The Supreme Court held that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer indicate that the charges framed against the delinquent employee were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery mining sponge gold ball weighing 4.5 grams and 1276 grams of ‘gold bearing sand’. They were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings to stand. 19. This court in A.D.S.SARMA (3 supra) held that when the criminal court acquitted the accused based on similar evidence, it would be unreasonable and arbitrary to subject the petitioner/accused to surcharge proceedings on the same charge that he has misappropriated money or has been found guilty of breach of trust in relation of the society. 20. In R.YADAIAH (4 supra) this court while deciding the question when a competent criminal court had recorded acquittal, on the same set of facts whether the licensing authority can ignore the same while exercising his discretion while making an order relating to either renewal or cancellation of such licenses held thus: “….In my considered opinion, the answer must be in negative only, the reason being, when on the same set of facts a competent criminal Court had arrived at a particular conclusion, the licensing authority is expected to take into consideration the said fact also while making an order in relation to either renewal of licence or cancellation of licence. At least to this limited extent, definitely the acquittal recorded by the competent criminal Court will be relevant….” (para 8) However, both the counsel have not brought to the notice of the court about preferring an appeal, WA No.664/2002 by the excise officials against the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this court in R.YADAIAH (4 supra) ie., WP No.19496/2001 dt. 15-2-2002. A Division Bench of this court disposed of the writ appeal by judgment dt. 22-4-2002. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the 1st appellant to consider the application of the respondents-writ petitioners for renewal of licence in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to the respondents or their counsel. Respondents are also at liberty to place before the authorities any further material in support of their claim for renewal of licence. The entire matter is left open to be decided by the 1st appellant on merits.” In view of the same, the observation made by the learned single Judge in R.YADAIAH (4 supra) gets obliterated. 21. A learned single Judge of this court in TODDY TAPPERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KOTHAKOTA (7 supra) held that notwithstanding the fact that the criminal proceedings initiated against the licensee ended in acquittal, yet that cannot be a bar for proceeding against the licensee in respect of the contravention of the conditions under Sec.31 and also any of the Rules made thereunder Sections 31 and 37 are two independent and disjunctive proceedings. Under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the authority can cancel the licence for any one of the contraventions laid down under clauses (a) to (e), whereas sub-section (2) postulates, in fact it explicitly states that where a licence or a permit held by any person is cancelled under any of the clauses of sub-section (1), the authority may cancel any other licence. After coming to the conclusion under sub-section (1), if a licence pertaining to a particular shop is cancelled, then only a show cause notice, if the authority feels, may be given purporting to cancel the licence pertaining to other shops. Otherwise, the issue becomes a pre-determined one which would be in contravention of the principles of natural justice. 22. After coming to the conclusion under sub-section (1), if a licence pertaining to a particular shop is cancelled, then only a show cause notice, if the authority feels, may be given purporting to cancel the licence pertaining to other shops. Otherwise, the issue becomes a pre-determined one which would be in contravention of the principles of natural justice. 22. In B.V.NARAYANA (8 supra), this court held that power under Section 31 of the Excise Act to cancel or suspend the licence or permit is subject to the restrictions that may be prescribed. Sub-section (1) of Section 31 enumerates the grounds for cancellation of licence. Section 37 of the Act provides penalty for adulteration etc. , by licensed vendor or manufacturer. There is nothing in the Act or in the Rules to show that the action taken under section 31 is dependant on the result of the action taken under Section 37. It appears that action under one section is independent of the proceedings under the other section and the authorities can resort to compilation of the licence under Section 31 irrespective of whether they are launching prosecution under Section 37 or not. As the proceedings under Section 31 had become final, the fact that the respondent was acquitted of offences in the prosecution launched under Section 37, does not affect the validity of the action that had already been taken under Section 31 of the Act. This court accordingly held that the acquittal of the licensee in a criminal proceedings under Section 37 does not invalidate the orders canceling the licenses. 23. This Court in K. P. REDDY (9 supra) while following the ratio laid down by this court in B.V.NAAYANA (8 supra) held that once the licensing authority cancelled the licence in exercise of powers under Section 31 of the Excise Act for the breach of the terms and conditions of the licence under Section 31(1) (b) of the Excise Act in the departmental proceedings, it cannot be restored unless the said order is set aside by the appellate or revisional authority. Under Section 63 and 64 of the Excise Act, there is no power to set aside the cancellation order or revise the same after it had attained finality. 24. Under Section 63 and 64 of the Excise Act, there is no power to set aside the cancellation order or revise the same after it had attained finality. 24. In J. VISWANATHA REDDY (10 supra) this court after referring to the various provisions of the Excise Act and while approving the ratio laid down by this court in B.V.NARAYANA (8 supra) and K.P. REDDY (9 supra) held as under: “…As observed by me earlier, while section 31 deals with the civil consequences, Section 37 deals with criminal consequences. In denying the life and personal liberty of a citizen, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to be established while such a requirement is not necessary in a departmental proceeding. This is evidently the reason why the Legislature did not make the provisions of Section 31 subject to Chapter vii. In dealing with cases arising under the Excise Act, the Courts cannot be oblivious of the serious adverse consequences, which the society would suffer on account of sale of spurious and adulterated liquor. If the provisions of section 31 are treated as subject to the provisions of Chapter VII, it would more often yield hazardous results, for in many a case the accused are acquitted on account of independent witnesses turning hostile as happened in the instant case and it is a notorious fact which this Court is bound to take judicial notice of that more often than not the independent witnesses are won over by the accused making them turn hostile. If the outcome in the departmental proceedings is made dependant upon acquittal in criminal cases, invariably it would lead to a situation where a person, who indulges in adulteration and violation of one or the other statutory provisions and terms and conditions of licence, will merrily continue to carry on the liquor trade to the serious detriment of the society at large. (para 23) The learned Judge rightly observed that before the learned single Judge who decided the case, R. YADAIAH (4 supra), the earlier judgments of this court in TODDY TAPPERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY, KOTHAKOTA (7 supra) and B.V.NARAYANA (8 supra) have not been cited and upheld the order of the cancellation of licence in spite of acquittal order passed by the criminal court. 25. It is now well settled that the scope of departmental and criminal proceedings is different and distinct from each other. 25. It is now well settled that the scope of departmental and criminal proceedings is different and distinct from each other. While in the former case, preponderance of probabilities is sufficient to prove the guilt of the person who was proceeded departmentally, in the latter case proof beyond reasonable doubt is sine qua non for convicting a person for a criminal offence. (see B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 750, High Court of judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shashikant S Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416 , High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh ( AIR 1997 SC 2286 ). 26. The Supreme Court in SOUTHERN RAILWAY OFFICERS ASSN. V. UNION OF INDIA (2009) 9 SCC 24 held that acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent had been acquitted of the criminal charge. 27. A close scrutiny of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court would clearly indicate that the scope of departmental and criminal proceedings is different and distinct from each other. Mere acquittal will not entail the departmental proceedings as illegal. If the departmental proceedings are already culminated into imposition of punishment, subsequent acquittal in the criminal case will not entail the delinquent to review the earlier order passed imposing punishment/cancellation of licence for violating the conditions of the licence, if any. 28. It is fairly well settled that the finding of the criminal court is not binding in civil proceedings/departmental enquiry, whereas the findings recorded in the civil proceedings will have a pervasive value in the criminal proceedings. 29. Keeping in view the above principles in mind, we shall now consider whether cancellation of licence is liable to be set-aside or licence is liable to be restored as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 30. Before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Khammam in all the calendar cases, according to the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for the seizure of toddy and arrest of the accused. In the presence of panch witnesses, excise officials drawn three samples for chemical analysis purpose. 30. Before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Khammam in all the calendar cases, according to the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for the seizure of toddy and arrest of the accused. In the presence of panch witnesses, excise officials drawn three samples for chemical analysis purpose. One of the seized samples was sent to the Chemical Examiner for report, who opined that the toddy is adulterated with chloral hydrate. P.Ws.1 and 2 before the court admitted their signatures on the panchanama and denied the remaining prosecution case. P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically stated in their evidence that the excise police requested them to sign on some papers and they signed on some white papers. Under those circumstances, the criminal court held that uncorroborated evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is absolutely not sufficient for the seizure of the case property from the possession of the accused and arrest of the accused and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and any independent witnesses beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. 31. Toddy Co-operative Society, Toddy Group of Khammam at Khammam represented by its President, G.Raghavaiah filed WP No.17710/2006 contending that the show cause proceedings issued as to why licenses in respect of toddy depot and toddy shop Nos.2,4,5,7,9,11 and 13 should not be cancelled without awaiting the second sample bottle report from the independent laboratory, as per representation made by the petitioner before the first respondent on 12-7-2006 as arbitrary and illegal and seeking a direction not to cancel the licences in respect of the toddy depot as well as toddy shop Nos.2,4,5,7,9,11 and 13 pending receipt of the second sample. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Khammam without conducting any enquiry suspended the entire toddy group of Khammam on 8-7-2006 and the petitioner-society approached this court and filed WP No.14998/2006 and obtained interim orders on 25-2-2006 suspending the suspension order to the extent of the licences of toddy shop Nos.1,3,6,8,10,12,14 to 20 of TCS Group of Khammam, where the authorities have not drawn the sample bottle from the above shops ie., 1,3,6,8,10,12,14 to 20. In para 5, it is specifically averred that the High Court allowed WP No.25615/2005 on 1-12-2005 and WP No.23675/2005 directing the Licensing Authority, ie., Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise not to cancel the licence of the petitioner-society pending disposal of the 1st and 2nd sample bottle reports from the independent laboratory. In another case ie., WP No.10414/2006, this court in WPMP No.13069/1006 suspended impugned order dt. 25-4-2006 in respect of toddy shop Nos.1 to 3 and depot, Yeldurthy village, and Mandal, Medak District, where the excise officials not inspected and not drawn any sample bottle. This court by order dt.1-9-2006 disposed of WP No.17710/2006 directing the respondents therein not to pass any final order pursuant to the impugned notices till the report of the independent agency in respect of the second sample drawn from the hops in questions is received. 32. The writ petitions referred to by the petitioner-society in WP No.17710/2006, namely, WP Nos.25615/2005,23575/2005 and 10414/2006 do not pertain to Toddy Cooperative Society, Toddy Group of Khammam. 33. In support of the contention about the petitioner-society making a representation for sending the second sample, on behalf of the toddy depot and toddy shop Nos.2,4,5,7,9,11 and 13, the petitioner-society enclosed representations dt.21-8-2006 addressed to the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Khammam covered under Ex.P-8 in WP No.17710/2006, wherein, it was requested to send the second sample bottle to the independent laboratory by receiving requisite fee and pending receipt of the second sample bottle report, allow them to carry on toddy business. It was also alleged that without receipt of the 1st sample bottle report, issuing suspension orders is illegal; the alleged vendor of today, namely, Nallamasu Chandraiah is no way connected with the toddy group of Khammam and he is not a member of the Society nor having any Naukarnama to sell the toddy on behalf of the Society. It was also alleged that the vendors of others shops who were selling toddy are no way connected with toddy group of Khammam nor authorized to sell the toddy on their behalf, where samples were drawn. Having accepted that the second sample was drawn on the date of inspection and having requested to send the second sample bottle to the independent agency, the petitioner-society and its members are bound by the report submitted by the Chemical Examiner on the second sample bottle. Having accepted that the second sample was drawn on the date of inspection and having requested to send the second sample bottle to the independent agency, the petitioner-society and its members are bound by the report submitted by the Chemical Examiner on the second sample bottle. When they approached this court by filing WP No.17710/2006 questioning the show cause notice calling upon them to explain as to why their licenses should not be cancelled before receipt of the second sample bottle report from the independent agency as illegal and arbitrary, they are estopped from contending that no such seizure was effected on the date when the excise officials visit the shops and drawn the samples. Once the petitioner-society invoked the jurisdiction of this court by seeking a Mandamus for sending the second sample bottle to the independent laboratory and obtained an order from this court dis-entitle the petitioner-society and its members to plead that no such seizure was effected when the report goes against them. The said fact has been taken into consideration by the licensing authority while cancellation of licences, which fact has not been brought to the notice of the criminal court nor any evidence was let in that regard. Failure of the prosecution to lead evidence resulted in acquittal of the licensees, the finding recorded by the criminal court acquitting the accused would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner-society and its members. 34. The proceedings taken under Sec.31 of the Excise Act are independent, which deals with cases for violation of conditions of the licence and rules made under the Excise Act for grant of licence etc., Under section 28 of the Act, every permit issued or licence granted under the Excise Act shall be issued or granted on payment of such fee, subject to the restrictions and conditions, as may be prescribed. Under cl.(b) of subsection (1) of Section 31, in the event of any breach by the holder thereof or by any of his servants or by any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, of any of the terms and conditions incorporated in the licence, the authority granting any licence under the Excise Act may cancel or suspend the licence irrespective of the period to which the licence relates. Under Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969, any Excise Officer/Police Officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, Food Inspector, appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is competent, at any time, to take samples of arrack or toddy in the possession of the licensee for the purpose of analysis and one of the samples shall be delivered to the licensee or his agent under acknowledgment, second shall be sent to the court and third shall be sent to chemical examination wherever necessary. 35. In view of the same, cancellation of licence by the excise authorities for adulteration of toddy will not become invalid on acquittal of the toddy shop owners by the criminal court for the offences charged under Section 37 of the Excise Act nor entitled to restoration of the licenses on acquittal so passed, for the reasons explained above. 36. POINT No.2: The petitioner-society by entering into a counter part agreement agreed for the terms and conditions of the licence including power of the licensing authority to cancel any other licence granted or permit issued as per clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act. The prescribed form for the counterpart agreement provides among other things for an undertaking that the licensee shall abide by all the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and the Rules and Orders thereunder existing and also those that would be issued from time to time in that respect. 37. The Supreme Court in C.M.JOSEPH (11 supra) held that when the rules were in existence at the time when the licence was granted to the petitioners, the High Court has rightly observed that the petitioners could not be allowed to impugn the same. In any event, we do not find any infirmity in the said rules, which state that the licensee shall be bound by all the rules, which have been passed under the Abkari Act and which may hereafter be made or in any law relating to abkari revenue. 38. Though it was alleged in the W.P.No.24674/2007 that fresh rules, namely, Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to sell toddy, conditions of Licence and tapping of excise trees) Rules, 2007, issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228, Revenue (Ex.II) dt. 38. Though it was alleged in the W.P.No.24674/2007 that fresh rules, namely, Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to sell toddy, conditions of Licence and tapping of excise trees) Rules, 2007, issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228, Revenue (Ex.II) dt. 19-9-2007 superseding all the earlier statutory rules, which came into force w.e.f 20-9-2007, under the said rules, the authorities are not conferred any power to cancel the licenses of the shops which are not involved in any malpractices, and Sec.31(2) of the Excise Act empowers the competent authority to cancel the licences of the shops, which are not involved in any of the allegation of malpractices violates article 14 of the Constitution, as it confers discretionary power on the licensing authority to pick and choose manner against the persons they like is an unbridled and unguided power and the same is violative of Rat.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We do not see any merit in the above ground taken in the writ petition. It is equally well-settled that mere possibility of abuse of a provision by those in charge of administration it cannot be a ground for holding the provision procedurally or substantively unreasonable. The Supreme Court in COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS V. NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY AIR1962 SC 316 : "the possibility of abuse of a statute otherwise valid does not impart to it any element of invalidity." In STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. UNION OF INDIA (1977) 3 SCC 592 , the Supreme Court said, "it must be remembered that merely because power may sometimes be abused, it is no ground for denying the existence of power. The wisdom of man has not yet been able to conceive of a government with power sufficient to answer all its legitimate needs and at the same time incapable of mischief". By catena of decision as referred to above, it was held that no citizen will have a fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution can do illegal business, the petitioner cannot complain that the same is violative of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel has not substantiated the same nor any arguments were advanced how Section 31 (2) is unconstitutional, except citing a judgment of the Supreme Court in ONKAR LAL BAJAJ (5 supra), as referred to above. We do not see any merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel. The Point No.2 is accordingly answered. 39. Learned Senior Counsel has not substantiated the same nor any arguments were advanced how Section 31 (2) is unconstitutional, except citing a judgment of the Supreme Court in ONKAR LAL BAJAJ (5 supra), as referred to above. We do not see any merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel. The Point No.2 is accordingly answered. 39. POINT NO.3: Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to sell toddy, conditions of Licence and tapping of excise trees) Rules,2007, issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228, Revenue (Ex.II) dt. 19-9-2007 in supercession of all earlier statutory rules came into force with effect from 20-9-2007 ie., on the date of publication of gazette notification. In spite of issuing show cause notice dt. 22-3-2007 under Sec.31(2) of the Excise Act to show cause as why licences should not be cancelled, no final orders have been passed in view of the interim orders passed by this court in WP No.14998/2006 and licences were renewed from time to time subject to the out come of the result in WP No.14998/2006. WP No.14998/2006 was dismissed as withdrawn on 1-10-2007. On withdrawal of the writ petition, the authorities can always take action on receipt of the second sample bottle report from the laboratory. 40. Sri Vaddeboina Krishna Rao, on behalf of Toddy Tappers’ Co-operative Society, Toddy Group of Khammam, at Khammam filed WP No.24547/2007 contending that he was elected as a President on 23-9-2007 and pleading for renewal of the licences in favour of the members who are not involved in adulteration under the new rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228 dt. 19-9-2007. 41. In the counter filed by the respondents in WP No.24547/2007, it is stated that passing a resolution removing G. Raghavaiah and other managing committee members on 23-9-2007 and electing a new body with Sri Vaddeboina Krishna Rao as President is not within the knowledge of the Department and in support of the same, no documents were filed by Sri Vaddeboina Krishna Rao. 42. Sri S. Rama Chandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner representing the Society contended that the term of office of the elected president under Sec. 35(2) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act.1964 is five years from the date of his/her election and he was elected on 20-10-2005 and the five years will expiry in October, 2010, so he cannot file the writ petition in the capacity of President of the Society. Rule 4 (2) of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228 dt.9-9-2007 enumerates disqualification for grant of license to Tappers Co-operative Society or tapper under “Tree for Tappers Scheme” who has been convicted or whose licence has been cancelled for breach of any of the conditions of licence granted under Section 31 of the Act within the preceding three years. Rule 39 deals with revocation of order of cancellation of licence if the licensee of toddy shop of toddy co-operative societies is found indulging in adulteration, for the first time, the members of managing committee will be disqualified and removed from the primary membership and the society may be continued with eligible tapper/members by imposing fine as prescribed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. As per the second proviso to Rule 39, if the licensee of shop of a TCS is found indulging in adulteration for second time the toddy shop licence shall be cancelled after following due procedure. In case there are any eligible tappers in such society after cancellation of shop license of Tappers Co-operative Society, licenses may be granted under tree for tapper scheme and the members of the managing committee will be disqualified in getting any license under the above rules. 43. The petitioner-society was indulged in adulteration of toddy, for which action was initiated in the year 1998. On cancellation of the licences, they made a representation for sending the second samples to an independent laboratory. The samples were sent to Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. The Chemical examiner submitted his report stating that the samples were not adulterated with diazepam or chloral hydrate. The petitioner-society made an application requesting the Excise Superintendent to restore the licence as the allegations of adulteration had not been proved. Questioning the non-restoration of licences, and some other reliefs, the petitioner-society filed writ petitions and this court dismissed the writ petitions upholding the cancellation (See TODDY TAPERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY GROUP V.PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT ( 2001(5) ALT 793 (DB). The petitioner-society again indulged in adulteration, as a result of which their licences were cancelled and a show cause notice was issued calling upon the remaining licensees of the shops, who are not involved in adulteration to explain as to why their licenses should not be cancelled. Therefore, the writ petition No.24674/2007 filed questioning the show cause notice dt.22-3-2007 cannot be entertained and is dismissed. Therefore, the writ petition No.24674/2007 filed questioning the show cause notice dt.22-3-2007 cannot be entertained and is dismissed. It is for authorities to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner-society to the above show cause notice including renewal of licence under the new rules or for grant of licence as per Rule 39 of the rule issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228 under tree for tapper scheme. 44. For the foregoing reasons, the other writ petitions ie., 24547/2007, 24883, 25075, 25076, 25077, 25101,25103 and 25228 of 2009 are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 45. The petitioner in WP No.24547/2007 has to substantiate his plea before the authorities about his electing as a President of the Society in accordance with law by producing all the relevant material, and on such production, the authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner-society for grant of licence as per Rule 39 of the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228 under tree for tapper scheme and pass appropriate orders. However, the entire exercise should be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.