1. Shivampet Malla Goud v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a wrlt or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or orders declaring the in aciton of Respondents herein in considering the application of the petitioners dt.3110112020 for issuing TFT License for Venkataipally Village of Toopran Mandal, Dist. Medak as being arbitrary, vindictive, illegal, violative of Articles 14, '16 and 1 9 of the Constitution of lndia and against to the principles of Natural \ Justice, and consequently direct the Respondents to issue TFT License to the petitioners for the village of Venkataipally, R/M. Toopran, Dist. Medak lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents herein to issue temporary TFT License to the petitioners herein for the village of Venkataipally, R/M. Toopran, Dist. Medak pending disposal of the above writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 and 5 herein to not to convert existing TFI of Venkataipally Village of Toopran Mandal, Dist. Medak into TCS pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER ,o THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR \IIRIT PETITION No.26483 of 2O2l Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader lor Prohibition & Excise appearing for respondents and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the owners of agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 2.00 gts., in survey No.427 situated at Venkataipally Village of Toopran Mandal, Medak District; that they have planted approximately 1,000 toddy trees under Haritha Haram Scheme initiated by the Government of Telangana; that the aforesaid trees planted by them have grown up and are ready for tapping; that they eke I out their living by tapping toddy trees as they belong to Goud Community; that they have approached the 3rd respondent- authority and submitted an application, dt.31.O1.2O20, seeking for sanction of License under 'Tree for Tapper(TFT) Scheme' and shop at Venkataipally Village of Medak District; and that pursuant to the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioners, the respondents-authoritics have also conducted tapping test on Ol.O4 .2021 .

3. Petitioners further contend that while the respondents- authorities have conducted tapping test on the petitioners on 2 Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents claiming that some of the existing TF"f License Holders have submitted an application on

25.01.2021 for conversion of their existing license to a Toddy Cooperative Society (TCS) kept the application of the petitioners for grant of TFT license and shop pending; and that the 4tr, respondent-authority is using the aforesaid application submitted by some of the existing TFI license holders as a tool not to grant TFT licence to the petitioners.

4. Petitioners also contend that some of the applicants who have submitted applications on 25.01.2O2 I for converting their TFT License to form a TCS have requested the respondents- authorities to continue their TFT license of the village, but the 56 respondent-authorit5r in collusion with some of the villagers is trying to protract the issue, thereby depriving the petitioners from getting TFT license.

5. By stating as above, the petitioners contend that since, the toddy trees planted in their land have become tappable, and if the TFT license is not granted for tapping the said trees within the tappable age, the said trees would become waste, sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering the application of the petitioners, dt.31.01.2O2O, by issuing TFT license, as being illegal, arbitrary, s q" --,- V 3 vindictive and violative of Articles 14, 1 6 and 1 9 of the Constitution of India.

6. Counter aflidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 is filed. By the counter aflidavit it is contended that there are two (02) existing TF"T license groups for toddy tapping in Venkataipally Village; that one group of applicants, namely petitioners herein sought for grant of additional TFT license in the existing TFT Scheme, while the other group consisting of 14 persons, including the existing 2 Tff licensees had requested for converting the existing TFT Scheme into TCS by submittin'g application on 25.01.2021; and that since the ratio of the eligible persons available for continuation of TFT license under scheme and for converting TFT into TCS is 2 '. 14, the 4e respondent recomrriended to consider the request of the majority section of eligible persons for converting TFT scheme into TCS.

7. By the counter affidavit it is further contended that as the 4ft respondent, by taking note of the majority of the section of eligible persons for conversion of existing TFT license into TCS, had passed order, dt.3O.O4 .2O2I, giving therein grounds/reasons to register the TCS for Venkataipally Village, and accordingly, registered the TCS, uide registration TR.No. i9, 4 dt.26.O4.2O21 with the area of operation as Venkataipally Village by issuing proceedings, dt.26.O4.2021.

8. By the counter affidavit it is further contended that though the authorities have conducted a tapping test on Ol .O4.2O21 , even prior to the conduct of said test, since , majority section of eligible existing TFT license holders having opted for formation of TCS, the 4e respondent-authorities while issuing proceeding dt.30.O4.2O2l had obtained an undertaking dt.22.O4.2O21 from the President of the TCS formed that they will give membership to the individual tappers i.e., the writ petitioners herein, and accordingly, while registering TCS directed that petitioners be given membership in thc said TCS formed. 9 . By the counter affidavit it is further contended that mere plantation and nurturing of toddy trees does not confer any right for grant of TFT license, and since, the existing (2) TFT I licenses under the Scheme have been converted into TCS on

30.O4.2021 and operating in Venkataipally Viltage of Toopran Mandal, Medak District, there is no possibility ior granting TFT licenses to the writ petitioners.

10. Learned Government Pieader would further contend that as per the proceeding, dt. 19.O9.2007, issued by the 2"d 5 respondent herein, only one TCS is permitted lor one viilage and where a TCS is permitted in respect of a village, no individual TF"T licenses can be granted, and as such, the petitioners cannot seek for issuance ofTFT license. i 1. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

12. Firstlg, though the petitioners, by the present Writ Petition though had enclosed copy of the proceeding, dt.30.04.2021, whereby they were directed to become members of the TCS formed by majority section of existing TFT license holders, lor the reasons best known, they did not assail the said proceeding, and did not seek any relief there against, either in the writ prayer or in the two interiocutory applications filed along with the writ petition, but have assailed the action of the respondents-authorities in not considering tl-reir application, dt.3 1 .0 1.2020 for grant of TFT licence.

13. Since, the petitioners have not assailed the action of the respondents in granting license in favour of TCS, this Court is of the view that the correctness or otherwise of grant of said TCS in favour of the 6tt respondent, who despite being served with notice did not chose to appear, cannot be gone into, and thus, the present writ petition is conhned only to examine the non- 6 consideration of the application of the petitioners, dt.30.O 1 .2020 for grant of TFT license in their favoirr.

14. Section 13 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the ActJ prohibits tapping of excise tree or drawing toddy lrom any such tree, except under a iicense.

15. The term 'excise tree' has been defined under Section 2(13) of tlre Act, and the term 'toddA'is delined under Section 2(3) of the Act, and they read as under: "2(1s) "excise tree" includes the tree of mohwq coconut, palm, palmyrafu date, bagani, sogo, sendhi or ang tree of the species of palm or palmgrah. from the fennented or unfennented juice of which toddg or liquor can be prepared. 2(3O) - "toddy" means fennented or unfennented juice dra utn from an excbe tree and containing alcohol."

16. Thus, in terms of section 13 of the Act, in order to tap an excise tree or toddy from any such trees, a license is required to be obtained from the District Prohibition and Excise Officer.

17. Further, Section 24 of the Act requires the owner or other person in possession of excise trees to give intimation of unwiilingness to tap the excise trees in writing to the authorily concerned and updn such intimation being received, the authority is empowered to grant license under Section 13 of the r- 7 Act to the person applying for grant of license in respect of the excise trees.

18. Further Rule 3(1) of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise. Trees) Rules, 2007 as framed in exercise of power conferred under Section 72 of the Act, (for short 'the RulesJ provides for grant of license by assigning toddy shops to TCS or individual tappers under Tree for Tappers Scheme" with validity of five excise years. i9. Rule 5(1) of the Rules provides for granting of license for sale of toddy to TCS or individual tappers under 'Tree for Tappers Scheme', subject to the disqualifications mentioned in sub-clause (2) and the formalities to be completed under sub- Rule (3) thereof.

20. Further, Rule 44 of the Rules, specilies that excise trees are to be made available for tapping and Rule 45 thereof provides for 'provisions relating to tapping of trees', and sale of toddy drawn there from alone by the licensee, be it TCS or a TFT iicense holder, from the allotted excise trees only.

21. Rule 47 of the Rules specifies that allotment of excise trees to be not less than 30 trees per tapper for supply to his shop. 8

22. A conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act and Ruies governing grant of license and allotment of excise trees, either under the Act or Rules, nowhere prescribes that if a license is given for TCS for a particular piace, no separate or individual TFT license can be given or all the TFT license holders are invariably required to become members of the TCS.

23. On the other hand, a reading of Section 13 of the Act with Rule 44 of the Rules would show that there is no bar or restriction imposed either by the Act or Rules in granting TFT license wherr: a TCS exists.

24. Further, a reading of the provisions clearly indicates that the Act and rules contemplate that the TCS and TFT to be independent o[ one another, and in a particular village, while a TCS is formed, individual TFT's can be granted license, who do not wish or intend to join the TCS as. members and continue to hold their license under the TFT Scheme, as both are mutually exclusive.

25. Though on behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on the proceedings, dt. 19.09.2007, issued by the 2"d respondent, to contend that once a TCS formed, no individual TFT licences are to be issued, a reading of the said proceeding nowhere indicates that where a TCS is granted in a village, no individual r I t 9 licenses under TFT Scheme can be granted. Further, even if any such circular is issued, the same does.not have any sanction under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

26. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no reitriction as to the co-existence of a TCS and TFT in a particular place, more particularly when the Act and Rules are silent in this regard.

27. Though the respondents, by their counter affidavit, have claimed, as majority section of eligible persons, on whom toddy tapping test was conducted, having opted for conversion of TFT into TCS, no individual TFT licenses can be granted in the same area, as noted herein above. since, there is no bar or restriction for co-existence of a TCS and TFT license holders, the claim of the respondents on the request of existing TFT licenses holders, a TCS having been formed and thus, the petitioners being directed to become members of the said TCS, without granting individual TFT licenses, in the considered view of this Court is neither in accordance with the Scheme of the Act or Rules framed thereunder, or can the petitioners, who do not wish to become members of the TCS can be forced to become members against their wish by giving up their right to seek TFT license I 10 thereby affecting their constitutional right to carry on profession guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

28. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the action of the respondents-authorities in not granting TF'T license to the petitioners, even though having lound them eligible for grant of said license on conduct of tapping test on OL.O4.2O2I , is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Thus, the respondents-authorities are hereby directed to consider the application of the petitioners, dt.31.01.2020 for grant of additional TFT license in the existing TFT Scheme, in accordance with the Act and rules, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

29. Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

30. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, State of Telangana Abkari Bhavan Nampally Road Hyderabad EW 7 \

3. The Deputy Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Medak. 4. The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Medak, Dist. Medak. 5. The Prohibition and Excise lnspector, Narsapur, Dist. Medak. 6. One CC to SRt. KONDADT AJAY KUMAR Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CCs to GP FOR pROHtBtTtON EXC|SE,High Courtforthe State of Telangana. [OUT] B. Two CD Copies KKS CJP l \ , , HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 ( ,t ,) r.i 1 E STAIE 'il o+ // . ,// 0B [li\ 2[6 * OFqp,', T1:'J .c ORDER WP.No.26483 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ \I \ l,sU-