Uppala Harikrishna v. The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise, Bapatla Circle & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Feb 2008
- Bench
- R SUBHASH REDDY
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Subject to above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th February 2008 N.B: Furnish C.C. by 18.02.2008. (b/o)
Judgment
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1685 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to forward the proposals, which are pending with him, for formation of Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, to respondents 2, 3 and 4 and to direct them to consider their case for grant of license for vending toddy in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1228, dated 9th September 2007 issued under Section 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is a resident of 11th Ward of Bapatla Municipality and is a toddy tapper by profession. It is his grievance that he along with other eligible toddy tappers, have submitted an application to the 2nd respondent for formation of Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society at Bapatla, but the said application is not being disposed of. It is submitted that pursuant to their application, an enquiry was ordered and the 1st respondent has conducted the tapping test and though there are more than required number of members for formation of a Society, however, without any valid reason, the proposals are kept pending with respondents.
On instructions, it is submitted by learned Government Pleader appearing for Excise petitioner and others have submitted a representation for establishing Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society at Bapatla and on receipt of their applications, the same were forwarded to the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Bapatla Circle for enquiry and report vide orders dated 12.10.2007 and 23.11.2007 issued in Proceedings R.C.No.195/2007/B1. It is stated that though a report was received earlier from the 1st respondent, but as it did not contain all aspects which are required to be considered for formation of a Tappers Society, it was returned to the 1st respondent-Station House Officer to submit a detailed report in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to sell toddy, conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007. It is stated that the report of the Station House Officer is awaited and further steps would be taken as expeditiously as possible on receipt of the said report.
The petitioner cannot seek directions for grant of license to sell toddy even without formation of the Tappers Society. The Society is not yet registered and proposals for its registration are pending with the 2nd respondent- Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, on whom, powers are delegated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and he has already acted upon it and is awaiting further report from the 1st respondent-Station House Officer. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to send the detailed report as sought by the 2nd respondent as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of such report, the 2nd respondent shall examine the feasibility of formation of a Society and if feasibility of formation of Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society at Bapatla, he shall verify the proposals and if the same are in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate steps and pass final orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of report from the 1st respondent. Asmuch as the Society is not yet registered, grant of directions for issuance of license to sell the toddy will not arise. But however, if the proposed Society is formed as stated above, it is open for it to make an application before the competent authority for grant of license to sell toddy.
Subject to above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th February 2008 N.B: Furnish C.C. by 18.02.2008. (b/o)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 — s. 72; Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964; Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 14 Feb 2008. The bench was R SUBHASH REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.