IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13548 of 2008 Between: The Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, Zaheerabad Village and Mandal, V. Krishna District Rep by its President, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Taper, R/o. Zaheerabad Village and Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Rep by its Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of AP., Office at Abkary Bhavan, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nizamabad Division, at Nizamabad. 4 The Prohibition & Excise, Superintendent, Sangareddy of Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned Memo No. 38043/Ex.II(1)/2007-5, dated 22-2-2008 erroneously rejecting the Revision filed by the petitioner society against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 26-6-2007 in file Cr. No. 10965/2006/CPE/E2 in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner society as filed against the proceedings B3/175/2005, dated 27-3-2006 and 22-7- 2006 passed by the 3rd respondent in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner society as against the order dated 07-1-2005 and 10-3-2006 in Cr.No. A5/1221/2005 on the file of the 4th respondent as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and against the law and consequently direct the 4th respondent to consider the case of the TCS, Zaheerabad for grant of New Toddy Shop Licences at Zaheerabad under the New Toddy Rules issued by the Government and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Excise. The petitioner is a Toddy Tappers’ Cooperative Society, which is aggrieved by the irrationality apparent in the decision making process in the 1st respondent’s Memo No. 38043/Ex.II(1)/2007-5 dated 22.2.2008 whereby the 1st respondent has disposed of a revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 64 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) as under (extracted to the extent relevant and material): “(7) The licences of above said shops were issued according to the old toddy rules and the Govt. has issued new toddy rules vide G.O.Ms.No.1228 and 1229 Dt: 19.9.2007. The old licence ceased to operate with effect from 1.10.2007. Hence the appeal filed by the President TCS, Zaheerabad, Medak district becomes infructuous. (8) Government have examined the matter and observed that at present TCS, Zaheerabad, Medak District are disqualified under Rule 5 (2) (b) and (c) of the New Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1228, Rev (Ex.II) Department, dated 9.9.2007 and new rules cannot be applied for grant of licence to the said society. The existing society is to be wound up under Section 64 of APCS Act 1964 and a new society is to be floated by the promoters and registered and then only it can be granted a Toddy shop licence. (9) The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise is therefore, requested to take action on the request of the President, TCS, Zaheerabad, Medak District for grant of licence to the TCS, Zaheerabad, Medak district, subject to fulfillment of the procedure stipulated in para (8) above. (10) The records received in the reference 4th cited are herewith returned.” The petitioner-Society was having a toddy depot licence and four distinct toddy shop licences at several places in Zaheerabad Town. According to the petitioner, it closed its toddy depot, pursuant to the order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 551 Revenue (Excise-II) Department dated 29.4.1995, withdrawing all the toddy depot licences in the State by omitting Rule 4 (2) of the A.P. Excise (Tapping of Trees and Toddy Shops Special Conditions of Licences) Rules 1969, with effect from 30.4.2005. The petitioner was only running its toddy shops, directly transporting the toddy to the shops from the source. According to the petitioner, it was not running the toddy depot at Zaheerabad since 30.4.2005. While so, on an inspection by the excise officials of the premises of the toddy depot, adulterated toddy was found there as also in the premises of Shop No.3 licenced to the petitioner-Society, but from which location the petitioner claims to have shifted to another location. As a consequence of the above inspection and pursuant to a process of show cause notice and procedure, the 4th respondent-the Primary Authority cancelled the licences of toddy shop Nos. 1, 2, and 4 apart from Shop No.3 by the orders dated 7.1.2005 and 10.3.2006. Aggrieved by the above orders of the Primary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 63 (1) of the Act to the 3rd respondent. The appeal was dismissed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner carried the matter by way of a further appeal under Section 63 (2) of the Act, to the 2nd respondent. By an order of the 2nd respondent dated 26.6.2007, the further appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision to the 1st respondent under Section 64 of the Act. During the pendency of the above revision before the 1st respondent, the State issued new Excise Rules called the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the 2007 Rules) in G.O.Ms.Nos. 1228 and 1229 dated 19.9.2007. Under the provisions of the 2007 Rules, all extant toddy licences stand rescinded. The new Rules however contained a provision to continue all the toddy shop licences and other licences granted under the ‘tree for tappers’ scheme by enabling obtaining of new licences under the new toddy Rules. There is however a prohibition against grant of licences under the 2007 Rules to earlier licencees whose licences were cancelled on grounds of adulteration or commission of serious irregularities. In the above factual and legal scenario, validity and rationality of the 1st respondent’s order must be considered. What was pending before the 1st respondent was a revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Act directed against the orders of the Primary and the two appellate authorities. The 1st respondent was therefore required (consistent with quasi- judicial obligations inhering in the 1st respondent under the mandate of the Act) to consider the revision on merits. This quasi-judicial obligation cannot be abdicated by a side-wind. Curiously, unmindful of the minimum standards of quasi-judicial discipline, in the impugned order the first respondent records that the revision (wrongly called an appeal) had become infructuous in view of the 2007 Rules. The 1st respondent has recorded in para (7) of the impugned order that the “appeal (sic-revision) becomes infructuous”. This is a patently erroneous conclusion. A revision against the primary and appellate orders finding the petitioner guilty of a serious offence under the Act and relevant Rules, of adulteration of toddy does not per se become infructuous because the Rules have been amended, particularly since the conclusion as to adulteration by the primary authority which led to the cancellation of the earlier licence is a birth-mark that the petitioner must carry and which record disables grant of licence under the 2007 Rules. Having recorded a non sequitur in para (7), the 1st respondent proceeds to hold in para (8) that since the petitioner is disqualified under Rule 5 (2) (b) and (c) of the 2007 Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of licence and therefore the petitioner-society should be wound up under the Act and a new Society floated by the promoters and registered and only thereafter could it be granted a toddy shop licence. This conclusion by the 1st respondent is also perverse for a plurality of reasons. Firstly, the order is in error as the 1st respondent failed to consider the revision of the petitioner on merits. Secondly, the 1st respondent assumes, an assumption which is fallacious that adulteration of toddy is committed by the juristic entity of the petitioner-society and not by one or more or all of its members or the management. If the management or the members of the petitioner namely; the Toddy Cooperative Society, Zaheerabad had indulged in adulteration of toddy, which led to the cancellation of their licences, then it would be a serious subversion of public interest that the same members or management should be permitted to again vend toddy under a new licence by the simple device of winding up the earlier juristic entity and contriving a new one. This observation of the 1st respondent as recorded in para (8) is subversive of public interest besides being in transgression of the toddy policy content of Rule 5 (2) (b) and (c) of the 2007 Rules, which prohibit grant of licences to any licencee whose earlier licence was cancelled for adulteration. The order of the 1st respondent is casual and inconsistent with the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It invites invalidation and it is accordingly quashed. Having regard to the casual approach to revisional scrutiny, this Court considers it appropriate to impose costs in an amount of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) payable by the 1st respondent to the Member Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so that legal aid at least is promoted for the negligent quasi-judicial conduct of the State. The Writ Petition is allowed as above, at the stage of admission with costs quantified as above. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 4.7.2008 Note: A copy of this order shall be marked to the Member Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, for information.