LAWS(APH)-2009-7-86

VALANDAPALEM TODDY TAPPERS INDUSTRIAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT KRISHNA DISTRICT

Decided On July 22, 2009
VALANDAPALEM TODDY TAPPERS INDUSTRIAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Appellant
V/S
PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT KRISHNA DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioners in short in this writ petition is that respondent No. 1 made inequitable allocation of area of operation among the existing Toddy Tappers co-operative Societies within the municipal limits of Machilipatnam.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 society has been in existence for a long time. The petitioners have come into existence much subsequently. Evidently, a notice was issued by the Excise Inspector on 16-03-2005, wherein all the societies were informed that the area of operation will be revised among them in the meeting to take place on 19-03-2005. In the said meeting, while petitioner No. 1 was allotted 5 areas in 2 wards, petitioner No. 2 was allotted 5 areas in 3 wards and whereas respondent No. 2 was allocated 15 wards. Thereafter, the petitioners made separate representations dated 19-06-2005 bringing to the notice of respondent No. 1 that injustice was done to them in the allocation of area of operation. As the allocation of area of operation was not revised, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, it is stated that the petitioners submitted their representations for allocation of area of operation on 02-03-2005, which were placed in the meeting conducted on 19-03-2005 and that the meeting was postponed after discussions. He further stated that a notice was issued to the President of respondent no. 2 society on 03-12-2004 directing him to submit proposals for amendment of its bye-laws after deleting Javvarupet, valandapalem, Chilakalapudi and gilakaladindi areas from its area of operation, that as no such proposals were submitted by respondent No. 2, by virtue of the powers vested in him, respondent No. 1 fixed the areas of operation for conducting society transactions. Respondent No. 2 sought to justify allocation of larger area of operation on the ground that it is a very old society and is in existence for a long time.