K KISTA GOUD Vs. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners five in number are TFT licence-holders. They say that seven persons were granted TFT licences. The ration for seven TFT licence holders is 1150 Sandhi treis. It is stated that the maximum trees allowable to each TFT licence holders is 160 and the minimum is 30. The Excise Superintendent, Medak (the 1st respondent herein) is said to have granted TFT licences to 31 persons to open additional counters. The grievance of the petitioners is that by granting TFT licences to 31 more persons the ration of the petitioners is reduced below the minimum and that as the grant of licence in favour of 31 persons affects their rights, notices ought to have been given to them by the 1st respondent before taking the proposed action of reducing their ration. In these circumstances the petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to reduce the number of trees allotted to TFT licence holders of Dharmajipet toddy shop.

(2.) The Assistant Excise Superintendent, Medak, filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It is stated, inter alia, that seven persons were allotted TFT licences which are valid till 30-9-1993 and that each of them was allotted 156 Sendhi trees. 51 persons of Dharmajipet have applied for additional counters as TFT licence holders in Dharmajipet for the year 1990-91. Their applications were forwarded by the Excise Commissioner. After enquiry it is found that 46 are tappers. Among them 34 persons were accorded permission for opening additional TFT counters in view of the excise policy for the year 1990-91. On a representation made against grant of licences to 46 TFT licence holders on the ground that 16 of them are non-tappers, re-tapping test was ordered by the District Collector. After the test 31 persons are declared eligible tappers. Accordingly TFT licences granted to 34 persons have been cancelled and 31 persons are granted permission for opening additional TFT counters, but they have not obtained licences so far. It is admitted that as per P.1.10 (iii) of the current excise policy, the maximum ration is 160 Sendhi trees and the minimum is 30 Sendhi trees. It is stated that the entire ration will be distributed among all the TFT licensees. It is further stated that there is no rule in the Excise Act or in the Excise policy for the year 1990-91 that the new members should not be admitted to the TFT scheme and if admitted the ration of trees and rentals should not be divided among the existing and the additional counters. It is also stated that there are no instructions regarding issuing notices to the existing licensees for reducing the trees to enable them to file objections before sanctioning additional counters. In these circumstances it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) Sri R.S. Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as 31 more persons are granted TFT licences, the ration of the petitioners will be considerably reduced; it will go even below the prescribed minimum therefore, the order granting TFT licences to 31 more persons is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that by virtue of granting licences to the additional persons, the existing rights of the petitioners are affected, therefore they are entitled to notice to file objections. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that having regard to the policy for the year 1990-91, TFT llicences will have to be issued to the genuine tappers and if as a result of granting TFT licences to the genuine tappers, the ration of a person is getting reduced, he is not entitled to any notice as he has no vested right in the trees. From time to time, the learned Government Pleader submits, ration will have to be adjusted according to the number of tappers available in the village, therefore the impugned action of granting licence is legal and valid.