Toddy Tapers Co-operative Society Limited, Raja Ram Pally village of Velgatur v. The District Collector (Excise), Karimnagar District and five others

Rajarampally village has not been issued. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner society filed W.P.No.21300 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 30-09-2005 with a direction to the respondents to take appropriate decision on merits in accordance with law on the representation of the petitioner dated 02- 09-2005 in which they sought for grant of licence as per the sanction order dated 25-02-2005. While so in the meanwhile, the sixth respondent society-Toddy Tappers Co- operative Society, Endapally village filed W.P.No.2603 of 2005 seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not considering their representation dated 30-01-2005 opposing the constitution of separate Co- operative Society for Rajarampally village and sanction of toddy shop at Rajarampally village is arbitrary and illegal. Their case was that Rajarampally village forms part of Endapally Revenue village and therefore, registration of separate Tappers Co-operative Society is not permissible.

The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 17-02-2005 directing Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise to consider the representation of the petitioner therein dated 30-01-2005 before any permission is accorded for constitution of separate Toddy Co-operative Society for Rajarampally village. However, it appears that even before receiving the order in W.P.No.2603 of 2005, fourth respondent-Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Karimnagar, had registered the petitioner society vide proceedings dated 25-02-2005. In the circumstances, the fourth respondent addressed a letter dated 09-03-2005 seeking clarification the second respondent. In pursuance thereof, the second respondent called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. On receipt of such report, dated 30- 04-2005, the second respondent passed an order dated 29-12-2005 rejecting the proposals formation of new Tappers Co-operative Society at Rajarampally village.

While passing the said order, the second respondent had also taken into consideration the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Velgatur dated 27-01-2005 in which it is stated that though Rajarampally Gram Panchayat was separated from Endapally under a notification published in the District Gazette dated 28-06-2005, the same has not been implemented till date and that Rajarampally village is not an independent revenue village and the revenue records were not separated. The said order dated 29-12-2005 is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that the fourth respondent, who is the Functional Registrar so far as the Tappers Co-operative Societies are concerned, is the competent authority under Section 6 of the Act and in exercise of the said powers the petitioner society was registered vide proceedings dated 25-02-

2005. It is not in dispute that long prior to that, Rajarampally village was bifurcated from Endapally village and it was published so in the District Gezette dated 04-07-2002. However, the second respondent, while relying upon the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Velgatur that the bifurcation has not been implemented and that Rajarampally village is not functioning as an independent revenue village, passed the impugned proceedings. The question is whether the impugned proceedings under which the second respondent rejected the proposals for formation of the petitioner society in spite of the fact that it was already registered by the fourth respondent is sustainable under law. Admittedly, the petitioner society with Rajarampally village as area of operation was already registered. Once the society has been registered under Section 6 of the Act, it can either be deregistered under Section 9-B of the Act by the Registrar himself or aggrieved party can prefer an appeal under Section 76 of the Act.

However, the second respondent who is not delegated with the powers exercisable under the provisions of the Act, cannot on his own set aside the registration even without issuing a notice to the society. As a matter of fact, under the impugned proceedings, the second respondent rejected the proposals for formation of the new Tappers Co-operative Society at Rajarampally in spite of the fact that the registration has already taken place. Thus the order of the second respondent dated 29-12-2005 appears to be superfluous. At any rate, undoubtedly the said order, which was passed merely on the basis of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, without any notice to the petitioner society, is not only arbitrary and illegal but also in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the said proceedings are liable to be set aside on that ground alone. As expressed above, once the society is registered under Section 6 of the Act, the only remedy available is to challenge the same by preferring an appeal under Section 76 of the Act.