Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar v. Hyderabad

This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare para 8 of proceedings in Memo No.33390/Ex.II(1)/2007-2, dated 19.02.2008 of respondent No.1 to the extent it held that the existing society is to be wound up and the new society is to be floated by the promoters and registered for grant of toddy shop license, as illegal and arbitrary. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the Tappers Cooperative Society, Gadwal was holding licenses to sell toddy. By proceedings, dated 27.06.2003, respondent No.3 cancelled licenses for shop Nos.1, 4 and 5 of the petitioner society on the ground of adulteration. The said order was confirmed in appeal by respondent No.2 by order, dated 29.07.2004. This order was assailed by the petitioner society in revision petition filed before respondent No.1. While the revision was pending, the promoters of the society applied to respondent No.3 for registration of a new Tappers Cooperative Society by excluding 18 persons who are members of the Executive Committee of the society when it was found indulging in adulteration.

By order, dated 08.02.2008, the said request was rejected on the premise that out of 46 members, 18 persons of the society who are also members of Executive Committee incurred disqualification and that the remaining 28 members are eligible for continuing in the society, if the society clears the Government dues along with penal interest. Accordingly, the remaining 28 members applied to respondent No.3 for permission of revival of the society without insisting on payment of any dues incurred by the earlier society during the years 1992-94. The revision petition filed by the erstwhile management of the petitioner society came to be disposed of on 19.02.2008, by respondent No.1, by holding that in view of coming into force of new rules notified in G.O.Ms.Nos.1228 and 1229, dated 19.09.2007, the licenses granted earlier ceased to operate with effect from 01.10.2007 and accordingly, the revision petition has become infructuous.

While so holding, respondent No.1, however made the following observation:

(8) Government have examined the matter and observed that at present the TCS Nos.1, 4 & 5, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar district are disqualified under Rule 5(2)(b) and (c) of the New Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228, Rev. (Ex.II) Department, dated 9.9.2007 and new rules cannot be applied for grant of licence to the said society. The existing society is to be wound up under Section 64 of APCS Act, 1964 and a new society is to be floated by the promoters and registered and then only it can be granted a Toddy shop licence.

Feeling aggrieved by the above reproduced observations of respondent No.1, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Having heard Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise and perused the record, I am of the view that there was no warrant for respondent No.1 to make the above reproduced observation.

The scope of revision before respondent No.1 was confined to the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2, which resulted in cancellation of licenses of the society. Having held that in the light of the new Rules, the Revision itself has become infructuous, respondent No.1 should have left the matter at that. Instead, it went into the question whether the existing society is entitled to grant of fresh license after expelling the members of the Managing Committee from the society or a new society is liable to be incorporated or not. This aspect should have been left to respondent No.3 for being decided on the application filed by the reconstituted society. In this view of the matter, respondent No.3 shall decide the question whether the petitioner is entitled to seek permission for revival of the existing society by expelling the members of the Managing Committee, during whose tenure the society indulged in adulteration under Rule 39 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007, or not, without being influenced by paragraph 8 of proceedings, dated 19.02.2008 issued by respondent No.1. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.9019 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. 31st MARCH, 2008 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J