HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 6257 OF 2021

Between:

The Toddy Tapers Cooperative Society, Shapurnagar, Qutubullapur Mandal, IDA Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District, represented by its President M. Devi Dattu Goud S/o. Madan Goud, aged about 23 years, Occ. President of the TCS, Shapurnagar. R/o. H. No. 32-313, L.B. Nagar, Shapur, Qutubullapur (M), IDA Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District.

...PETITIONER

AND

• The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
• 2. The Proh. and Excise Superintendent, Medchal cum Functional Registrar of Toddy Tapers Cooperative Society, under TS Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 Plot No. 94, Sy. No. 236, 3rd Floor, Sri Krishila Nagar, Suchithra Road, Qutubullapur, Ranga Reddy District.
• 3. The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station Qutubullapur, Plot No. 19, Godavari Homes Vennelagadda, Qutubullapur, R.R. Dist. 67.
• E. Naresh Goud, S/o. E. Krishna Goud, aged major, Occ. Private Service, R/o. H. No. 4-83/26, Adarsh Nagar, Gajularamaram (V), Qutubullapur (M), Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order dated 25-02-2021 in Cr. No. 619/Coop/2019, directing the petitioner society to consider the membership application of the 4th respondent as member in the petitioner society, though the 4th respondent is not at all taper by profession and further though the 4th respondent is not eligible to be admitted as member in the

petitioner society, as illegal, unlawful' contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and same may be set aside by declaring that the 4th respondent is not taper by profession is not eligible to be member in the petitioner society' and same may be set aside consequently declaring that the 4th respondent is not entitled to be admitted as member in the petitioner society'

IANO:1O F20 1

I

Petition Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theatfidavitfiledinSupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtostay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned order dated 25'02-2021 passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr' No' 619/Coop/2019' in directing the petitioner society to consider the membership application of the 4th respondent to admithimasmemberinthepetitionersociety'pendingdisposalofmainWrit

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M' DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No'1 to 3: GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent No'4: SRI SURESH GOUD SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHY

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR ^I Wri.t Petition No,6257 of 20_2J.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order, in Cr.No.6 lg/Coop 12019, dt.25.02.2021, whereby the petitioner society was directed to consider the membership application of the 4th respondent, for admitting him as member into the petitioner society, though the said respondent is not at all tapper by profession, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise and Sri G.Suresh Goud, learned counsel appearing for the 4'h respondent.

3. The main ground on which the petitioner society seeks to question the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent authority is that the 4th respondent did not possess required skills for tapping sendhi tree, to carry on/perform the activities relating to toddy tapping.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would however fairly admit to the fact that as per the provisions of the T.S. Excise Act,

1968, and the Rules framed thereunder, it is the 2nd respondent authority who is competent to decide as to whether a person possesses required skills to tap the sendhi tree by climbing thereon and also using tools relating to making rough face, smooth face and tie up the pot to the tree and that his decision is final.

⁵ A counter aFfidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent is filed

6. By the counter affidavit filed, the 2nd respondent states that as per the provisions of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), a member can be different family with independent living for being admitted as member into the society; that pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.21520 of ²⁰²⁰ dt.03.12.2020 to conduct skill test for the 4th respondent again, ^a notice was issued on 11.01.2021 for conduct of skill test on 23.0L.202l; that as tapping demonstration test was not performed on the said date, another notice was given with a direction to attend test on 01.02.2021 at 11.00 a.m.; and that and that skill test was conducted on 01.02.2021 at 11.00 am at D.Pochampally Tope, Gandi Maisamma Dundigal Mandal, whereat the 4th respondent was successful in demonstrating to the authorities that he possesses required skills for climbing sendhi tree and also be able to perform activities relating to toddy tapping.

)

7. By the said counter-affidavit, the 2nd respondent further contends that notice regarding conducting of skill test on 01.02.2021 was also given to the petitioner society, vide lefter dt.25.01.2021 by sending the same by RPAD on 29.01.2021 and the said letter was delivered to the petitioner society on 30.01.2021.

B. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, while supporting the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, would submit that on the day when the skill test was conducted on ⁰¹.02.2021, the representative of the petitioner society was also present thereat and thus, the claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition that no notice was given to them is liable to be rejected.

9. ^Ihave taken note of the respective contentions urged

10. A reading oF the impugned proceeding dt.25.02.2021 clearly indicates that pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.21520 of 2020 dt.03.12.2020, the 3'd respondent conducted skill test on 01.02.2021 to determine as to whether the 4th respondent, who is seeking for grant of membership in the petitioner society, is able to perform the activities of toddy tapping and notice of conduct of skill test on the said was given to the petitioner. A further reading of the impugned proceeding would indicate that the 4th respondent had attended the same as per the given schedule and the 4th respondent

3

was successful in the skill test conducted. The impugned order also shows that thc 3'd respondent on completion of skill test, reported to their office that the 4th respondent was abre to crimb the sendhi tree and also able to perform activities related to toddy tapping i.e. making rough face, smooth face and tie up the pot to the tree; and that upon the 4th respondent performing the above test, the concerned authority certified that the 4tf' respondent has compreted tapping demonstration successfully.

11. By the impugned proceeding, it is also stated that the entire demonstration test was video recorded; and that upon the 2nd respondent authority satisfying himself as to the 4th respondent meeting the requirements specified under the Act, has directed the petitioner society to grant membership to the 4th respondent in the petitioner society.

12. The only objection that was taken by the petitioner to the said order is that though the 4th respondent had successfully passed the skill test of climbing the tree, making rough face, smooth face etc., and tying of pot at the top of the tree, no sendhi was collected or dropped into the pot tied at the tope of the tree. The said argument advanced does not appeal to this Court for being countenanced, for the reason that merely upon tying of pot to the tree, sendhi would not drop into

4

the pot tied thereto, and it requires some time for the sendhi to flow into the pot. Further, the flow of sendhi into the pot depends on as to whether the tree selected for performing skill test is a sendhi yielding tree or not. In addition, as per the provisions of the Act, the authorities are only required to conduct a skill test to ascertain as to whether the person is capable of climbing tree and perform other related activities, as noted above, for collection of sendhi and not actually collecting the sendhi or the quantity from the said tree. Thus, the contention of the petitioner society for refusing to grant membership to the 4^th respondent, in spite of the impugned order issued by the 2^nd respondent, appears to this Court is intended only to deny the legitimate claim of the 4^th respondent and thus, cannot be accepted.

13. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance.

14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

W.P.NO.6257 OF 2021

Rs. Ps.

Cost Quantified by Hon'ble Court (That the petitioner herein is directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana State Legal

Cantdur

5

Services Authority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.)

TOTAL

5,000 - ⁰⁰

5,000 - ⁰⁰

SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (.!1" SECTION OFFICER

To,

7

• 1. One CC to SRI M. DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
• 2. Two CCs to GP for Prohibition and Excise, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

//TRUE COPY//

• 3. One CC to SRI G. SURESH GOUD, Advocate [OPUCI
• 4. One CC to SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate [OPUC]
• 5. Two CD Copies.
• 6. One Spare Copy

U:'I-

HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2022

ORDER

WP.No.6257 of 2021