THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3238 OF 2008 DATED:25.8.2011 Between: The Chepuru Toddy Toppers Cooperative Society H/o. Chamavaram Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District Rep. by its President Penka Manikyam S/o. Peda Appala Swamy … Petitioner And The Superintendent (Prohibition & Excise) Kakinada, East Godavari District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3238 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in unauthorizedly allowing the members of the 3rd respondent society in tapping the toddy in N. Chamavaram Tope, Tuni Mandal, situated within the limits of Chepuri TCS by ignoring the Rc. No.2343/04/A2, dt.4.4.2006 passed by respondent No.1 which was confirmed in R.C. NO.1064/06/B4 dt.31.10.2006 by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada, besides the proceedings in Rc. No.30/07/A2 dt.29.2.2007 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art.21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to allow the 3rd respondent society to tap the trees situated within the area of the petitioner society.” The petitioner and the third respondent are toddy tappers cooperative societies. There is a dispute with regard to area of operation for the purpose of tapping of trees, which were situated in N. Chamavaram tope. In view of the rival claims, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent – first respondent, by order dt.4.4.2006 issued proceedings in Rc. No.2343/2004/A2 directing that in view of insufficiency of trees in Chepuru tope, N. Chamavaram tope is allotted to Chepuru toddy tappers cooperative society, which is the petitioner herein, and further instructions were issued to the third respondent society not to tap the trees in N. Chamavaram village. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner society that in spite of above said directions issued by the first respondent - Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, second respondent – Prohibition and Excise Inspector is not implementing the same. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that he has not allowed the third respondent - Tuni toddy tappers cooperative society members to tap the trees in Chamavaram tope. It is further stated that he has visited the Chamavaram tope and when it was found that some members of the third respondent society were tapping the trees in the tope, cases were registered against them and they were also arrested. In view of the above said steps taken by the second respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner requests to dispose of the writ petition recording the statements of the second respondent made his counter affidavit. It is evident from the counter affidavit of the second respondent that the trees situated in Chamavaram tope were allotted to petitioner, and the second respondent is also taking steps to prevent the members of the third respondent society from tapping trees in Chamavaram tope. Therefore, recording the statements of the second respondent made in his counter, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25.8.2011 bnr