Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 1035
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.A.SWAMY
Toddy Co-operative Society, Lalapet Toddy Group, President, K.Papaiah Goud - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad District at Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-28-95
The Tappers Co-operative Societies are entitled to the same concessions and benefits as the licensees who have taken the lease of right to sell the toddy in an auction.
Headnote:
EXCISE - LEASE OF RIGHT TO SELL LIQUOR IN RETAIL - TAPPERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - EXCESS RENTALS - DEMAND NOTICE - QUASHED - WRIT OF MANDAMUS ISSUED - EXCISE (LEASE OF RIGHT TO SELL LIQUOR IN RETAIL) RULES, 1969, RULES 3, 4, 14(1), 15(1) - A. P. EXCISE (TAPPING OF TREES AND TODDY SHOPS SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LICENCE) RULES, 1969, RULES 14(1), 15(1).
Fact of the Case:
During the Excise year 1993-94, the auction of toddy shops was dispensed with and all the shops were given on lease to Tappers Co-operative Societies as per the policy approved by the government. In the following year, the Collector bifurcated the Tukaramgate group of toddy shops into two, Lalapet group and Tukaram gate group, without informing the licensees about the yearly rental fixed for each group. The members of the petitioner Tappers Co-operative Society, to whom Lalapet group of toddy shops were allotted, faced difficulties in tapping the allotted trees due to non-availability and had to pay excess rentals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the action of the Excise authorities in increasing the ration of trees on the toddy shops and demanding excess rentals was illegal and arbitrary. The court held that the Tappers Co-operative Societies stand on a different and distinct footing from that of a licensee, who has taken the lease of right to sell the toddy in an auction. The court also held that the demand notice issued for the excess rentals was not sustainable in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the action of the Excise authorities in increasing the ration of trees on the toddy shops and demanding excess rentals was legal and justified? 2. Whether the Tappers Co-operative Societies are entitled to the same concessions and benefits as the licensees who have taken the lease of right to sell the toddy in an auction?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the action of the Excise authorities in increasing the ration of trees on the toddy shops and demanding excess rentals was illegal and arbitrary. The court held that the Tappers Co-operative Societies stand on a different and distinct footing from that of a licensee, who has taken the lease of right to sell the toddy in an auction. The court also held that the demand notice issued for the excess rentals was not sustainable in law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the demand notice issued for the excess rentals and issued a Writ of Mandamus to the respondents to collect the rental on the ration fixed for each of the shops for the Excise year 1993-94 but not during the Excise year 1994-95.
( 1 ) THIS is yet another case where the provisions of the Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder for the benefit of the tappers, were made a mockery by the officials of the Excise Department and they tried to squeaze monies without authority of law or any basis more so without following any procedure for the sin of taking the toddy shops on lease as per the policy enunciated by the commissioner of Excise with the approval of the Government said to have been beneficial to the tappers.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing of this case are: During the Excise year 1993-94, auction of toddy shops was dispensed with and all the shops were given on lease to Tappers Co-operative Societies as per the policy approved by the government. In that year, the toddy shops situated at Tukaramgate, addagutta, Lalapet, Mettuguda and Tarnaka were grouped together and the group was given on lease to Co-operative Society on an annual rental of rs. 26,50,155-00. The ration for each of the shop was fixed individually and the total number of trees earmarked for the group came to 6500 and the rental worked out at Rs. 407. 71 ps. per each tree. Now, it is on record that during the excise Year 1993-94, the Society could not tap the entire ration due to nonavailability of the excise trees. That being the state of affairs for the Excise Year 1994-95, the respondents seemed to have moved a proposal to bifurcate the group into two, one Lalapet group consisting of Lalapet. Mettugudda and tamaka and the other Tukaram gate. Having come to know of the proposals, the members of the society made a representation not to bifurcate the group and continue the group as it is. Without heeding to the request of the tappers, the collector seemed to have passed orders in the Note File effecting bifurcation as stated above. But at the same time/ no written orders were communicated to the societies either by the Collector or the Excise Supreintendent. Likewise they did not inform the licencees about the yearly rental fixed for each group. The members of the petitioner Tappers Co-operative Society, to whom Lalapet group of toddy shops were allotted, seemed to have run for trees between the 1st respondent office and to the offices of the Excise Superintendents in the neighbouring districts seeking allotment of the trees for tapping. But, where ever they have gone as per the directions of the 1st respondent, the stock answer they received was trees are not available in the range. With great difficulty they could tap 4760 trees during the Excise Year 1994-95. The members of the society having realised that the Department is collecting excess rentals, made repeated representations from 4th May, 1995 to the 1st respondent to settle the account of the society for the year 1994-95. When their representations did not yield fruitful results, they seemed to have approached this Honourable Court and this Honourable Court while disposing the writ petition No. 10578/95 at the admission stage on 30-5-1995 passed the following order:"the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the representation dated 4-5-1995 and 25-5-1995 for adjustment of the excess rental collected from the petitioner society for the Excise Year 1994-95 have not been disposed of by the respondents so far. In the circumstances, the respondentsaredirectedtodispose of the same in accordanre with law as expeditiously as possible not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of this". Pending disposal of the representation, the petitioner society seemed to have not paid the monthly rentals for April and May 1995. It is not known whether the order passed by this Court was received by the 1st respondent or not. In proceedings Dated 13-6-1995, the 1st respondent in Cr. No. C5/3075/95/esh/ ex. , gave notice to show cause why the licence of the petitioner society cannot be cancelled for default in payment of rental due to the Government during the excise Year 1994-95 to a tune of Rs. 3,38,8
