IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN

PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.18597 of 2009

Between:

K. Ganesh Goud & another.

… Petitioners

And

The Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

… Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P. Lakshma Reddy

Counsel for respondents 1-3&5: GP for Prohibition & Excise

Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri B. Sairam Goud

This Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.18597 of 2009

ORDER:-

At the interlocutory stage the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

I have heard Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and Sri B. Sairam Goud for respondent No.4.

The petitioners have been granted licences under TFT scheme in respect of Mathamarrigudem Village, Bellampally Mandal, Adilabad District vide licences dated 04.10.2007. The petitioners filed this writ petition with the grievance that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been interfering with their right of tapping the toddy trees.

Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit, wherein the fact that the petitioners have been granted licences under TFT scheme has been admitted. He has, however, denied that at the instance of respondent No.4, the official respondents have been preventing the petitioners from tapping the trees allotted to them under the licences.

Respondent No.4 filed a separate counter affidavit, wherein they have inter alia stated that the area in respect of which the petitioners have been granted TFT licences falls in their area of operation and as grant of TFT licences to the petitioners is wholly

illegal, they filed a statutory appeal, which was registered as appeal No.844 of 2008 before respondent No.5 and that the said appeal is pending.

The learned counsel for respondent No.4 strenuously contended that as the grant of licences in favour of the petitioners in the area of operation of respondent No.4 is wholly illegal, respondent No.4 cannot be prevented from tapping the trees.

In my considered opinion, so long as the licences granted in favour of the petitioners continued to exist, respondent No.4 cannot be permitted to interfere with tapping of trees by the petitioners. Whether grant of licences in favour of the petitioners is legal and valid is required to be adjudicated by respondent No.5 in the pending appeal filed by respondent No.4. Admittedly, no interim order has been granted by respondent No.5 in favour of respondent No.4. Therefore, it is not permissible for either respondent Nos.1 to 3 or respondent No. 4 to interfere with the right of the petitioners to tap the trees in pursuance of the licences granted in their favour so long as they exist.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.5 is, however, directed to dispose of the appeal filed by respondent No.4 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after notice and giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WVMP.Nos.3285 and 3493 of 2009 are dismissed and WPMP.No.24323 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous.

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

_____________________________

Date: 17.03.2010 ES

Note:- Issue CC in one week. ES