TODDY TAPPERS CO OP SOCIETY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Toddy Tappers Co-Operative Society, Nandanam village filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings of the respondent No. 1 in Rc.No.E1/2797/95 dated 8-11-1995, wherein a separate Tappers Co-Operate Society was formed for Namathpally village, which is a hamlet of Nandanam village and formed part of the Grama Panchayat-Nandanam, till 18-10-1995.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is : Namathpally is a hamlet of Nandanam village, and as per the Excise Policy, single Tappers Co-Operative Society was formed for the entire village and the lease hold rights to sell toddy for the Excise year 1993-94 were leased out to the petitioner's society. During the excise year 1994-95, as per the policy of the Government, under Grama Panchayat Act, a separate Grama Panchayat was constituted for Namathpally, which came into existence on 18-10-1995. As per the Excise policy for the year 1995-96, Tappers Co-Operative Society can be formed for a Grama Panchayat or for a hamlet of Revenue Village, if it is at a distance of more than two kilometers from the main village by deleting the same from the area of operation of the existing Tappers Co-Operative Society. According to the Excise Policy, the first respondent passed orders for constituting a separate Tappers Co-Operative Society for Namathpally Grama Panchayat, at the instance of the tappers of that Grama Panchayat, who are having membership in the existing Tappers Co-Operative Society ofNandanam village. The contention ofthe petitioner's society is that without giving any notice to the Society before deleting the Grama Panchayat from its area of operation or before the tappers, who are having membership in the Society have resigned their membership, the first respondent passed the impugned proceedings. Now, it is settled proposition that no one is having any fundamental right to deal in intoxicants and it is only a privilege which can be leased out, by the State, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Admittedly, the licence of the Society came to an end by 30-9-1995 and the renewal of licence depends upon the decision of the licencing Authority pursuant to the Excise Policy framed by the Commissioner under proviso to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969, with the approval of the Government. Such a provision is made to see that the benefit extended to the tappers will be utilised by maximum number of tappers. Further, the licence of the Society was not withdrawn for any violation of the conditions as stipulated under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Likewise, I am of the opinion that the principle underlying Section 15 of Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964, cannot be imported for constituting Cooperative Societies meant for the welfare of a class of persons under special circumstances. The question that has to be considered under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act is the viability or non-viability of the Society. Here, the situation is altogether different. There is a social objective underlying the policy of the Government in permitting the tappers residing either in a village or Grama Panchayat or in the hamlet of a village to form aCo-operative Society only to improve their living conditions and it cannot be interdicted on the ground that the residents are taking steps to constitute a separate Co-operative Society for the area which was hitherto continued in the area of the operation of the existing Society. Further there can be more than one Society for an area as no monopoly is created in any particular Society. I am of this view, because of the settled legal position that no citizen is having a fundamental right to deal with the intoxicant, no notice need be given to the existing society before forming another Society in its area of operation. But, I am confronted by the learned counsel for the petitioner with a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in WA.No. 1721 of 1995 and W.P.No.24456 of 1995, dated 29-12-1995, wherein their Lordships held that in the similar circumstances, the respondent ought to have given a notice to the existing Society before implementing the Excise Policy. I am bound by the said judgment. As their Lordships did not consider the above aspect while deciding the issue in the above matter, and at an appropriate time if the matter comes upon again for consideration before the Division Bench, it will be open to the Division Bench to consider the issue from the angle in which I viewed the matter and arrive at a just decision.

(3.) Coming to the present writ petition, I have no option except to allow the same and quash the proceedings No.E 1/2797/95, dated 8-11-1995 of the first respondent in trying to constitute a separate Co-Operative Society for Namathpally village. But, at the same time, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to implement the policy of the Government by giving a show-cause notice properly reflecting the policy of the Government and specifying the reasons why they intend to constitute a separate Co-Operative Society for Namathpally Grama Panchayat and pass orders after considering the explanation given by the petitioner-Society. In the meantime, it is made clear to the third respondent-the Chief Promoter of Tappers Co-Operative Society, Namathpally, that if they want to have a separate Tappers Co-Operative Society for their Grama Panchayat, they cannot continue to be members of the existing Society and they are at liberty to approach the respondents after resigning their membership in the existing Society for formation of Tappers Co-Operative Society as per the policy of the Government. If the third respondent is interested to have a Co-Operative Society with the tappers residing in the area, he shall make an application to the first respondent within two weeks from today and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law keeping in view the above observations within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents 1 and 2 delay the matter without taking a decision before the time fixed by the Government for constituting new Tappers Co-Operative Societies, the matter will be viewed seriously and this Court will not shirk in its duty in initiating contempt proceedings suo motu for violating the orders of the Court.