TODDY TAPPERS COOP SOCIETY SADASIVAPET SADASIVAPET VILLAGE AND Vs. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT MEDAK DISTRICT AT SANGAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals by the Toddy Tappers Co-op. Society, Sadasivapet are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 5.7.2001 made in W.P. Nos. 5684 and 10486 of 2001. W.P. No. 5684 of 2001 was filed by the appellant-Society calling in question the legality of the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent herein dated 21.3.2001 directing the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Medak District, the 1st respondent herein, to form a new TCS for certain applicants represented by Mr. Prakash Goud, the 4th respondent herein, and take necessary action for allotment of ration, fixation of rental and grant of licence. In W.P. No. 10486 of 2001, Mr. Prakash Goud, the 4th respondent in the writ appeals, is the writ petitioner. He filed the above writ petition assailing the validity and correctness of the Memo No. 22911/Ex.II/2001 dated 17-4-2001 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh granting suspension of the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 21.3.2001 impugned in W.P. No. 5684 of 2001.

(2.) The appellant, while assailing the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 21.3.2001 contended that the said order is one without authority of law and the Commissioner has no power either under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Cooperative Societies Act, for brevity) and the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'Excise Act'). The appellant also questioned the impugned order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on merits too. There is no need for us to dilate the contentions raised by the appellant-petitioner on merits. W.P. No. 5684 of 2001 was opposed by the 4th respondent, Mr. Prakash Goud, by filing counter affidavit wherein he contended that the petitioner-society has no locus-standi to question the validity of the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 21.3.2001 on the ground that none of the rights of the petitioner-society are affected or impaired by the impugned action of the Commissioner.

(3.) We have heard Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for 4th respondent and Mr. G.Chandraiah, learned G.P. for Excise and Prohibition, for official respondents 1 to 3.