Kasipurarn Narayana Goud v. State of Telangana and 7 others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-14. Kasipurarn Narayana Goud v. State of Telangana and 7 others. Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECETVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO wRtT PET|TTON NO. 21950 0F 2020 Between: Kasipuram Narayana Goud, S/o . late Sri Kumara Swamy Goud, aged 36 years, - Occ: Toddy Tapper, R/o. H. No. 8-5-290, Sai Anurag Colony, Bachupalli, IVedchal lValkajgiri District. .. ,PETITIONER AND 1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Th6 Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. 4 The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 5 The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy. 6 The Prohibition and Excise lnspector/Station House Officer' Prohibition and Excise Station, Quthbullapur, lVledchal-Malka.
jgiri District. 7 Sri Gopagani Ganesh Goud, S/o. and age not known, District Prohibition and Excise Officer, I\,4ed chal-l\4a lkajg iri District, Sri Gaddam Venkatesh, S/o, and age not known, Station House Officer, Proh. 8 and Excise Station, Quthbullapur, lVedcha l-lt/a lkajg iri District. ,,. RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice/Proceedings No. Cr. No. E2l87212020 dated 01 . 10. 2020 issued by the Respondent No. 4 i. e. District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Medchal, I\/edchal - IMalkajgiri District rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 15. 9.
2020 for grant of TFT Licence at TFT Centre, Bachupalli village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District for extraneous reasons which has been issued quite contrary to the true intent of Telangana (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of '1228, Revenue Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 (issued vide G. O. lr/s. No. (Ex. ll) Department dated 9-9-2007 Published in AP Gazette (RS) Part-ll Extraordinary No. 7 dated 20. 9. 2007) and also conlrary to the instructions issued by the commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana State, Hyderabad vide cr. No. 3454/2015lCPE|E1 dated 21 . 7. 2015 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide exercise of power, unjustified and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of constitution lndia and contrary to the provisions of Telangana Excise Act, 1968 and the Telangana (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 and set aside the sa me.
IAN O: 1 OF 2020 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 5 i. e. District Prohibition and Excise officer, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District to conduct Tapping demonstration Test afresh to the petitioner and submit a report to this Hon'ble Court as per the provisions of the Excise Act and the Rules/circulars/instructions made there under pass such further or other orders aS the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. RAVI KIRAN RAO counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: AGP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 & 8: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21950 of 2O2O ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. 2.
This writ pctition is liled challenging thc notice dated O1. IO. 2O2O issued by the District Prohibition and Excise Officer (D. P&E. O), Medchal, lourth respondent herein informing petitioner that his application to secure TFT licence cannot be granted, as he failed in tapping demonstration test at al1 levels. 3. This order in the form of notice is challenged primarily on two grounds. Firstly, reasons assigned are not supported by record available with the officer concerned and there is no truth in the allegation that petitioner failed in successfully completing tapping demonstration test; and secondly the officers in Medchal- Malkajgiri Distrrct were biased against pelilioner and hell bent on declaring the petitioner as unfit to be a toddy tapper. Learned counsel for petitioncr also submits that after receiving the notice, though petitioner applied to supply copy of report of Station House Officer, Qutbullapur under Right to Information Act, copy is not supplied.
In the absence of copy of report, petitioner is not aware of the reasons forming part of the report, based on which impugned notice is issued to the petitioner and therefore, he cannot prefer appeal raising all the grounds available to him. 4. Having regard to the allegation that copy of the report is not supplied and to the understanding of the petitioner that report is not against the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader -3 was directed to secure record and to prorluce copy of the report of the Station House Officer dated O 1 10 2Q2O referred to in Pleader produced Learned Assistant Government impugned notice. report of Station House Officer' several documents including the House record that report of the Station However, it is seen from the officerdated26. 09.
2020wasacknowledgedbytheofficeofthe In this Excise Officer on 29 '09 '2O2O ' District Prohibition and report, the Station House Officer informs the District Prohibition and Excise Officer that petitioner failed in Tapping Demonstra tion Testatalllevelsandcertainobjectionswerealsoraisedbythe others stating that petitioner is not resident of Bachupally' 5. While this report is dated 26 09 2020 acknowledged by D. P&E. O ot 29. 09. 2020, what was referred to in the impugned notice is a report dated 01. 10'2020 No such report is placed doubts on the before this Court. This aspect creates enough manner of dealing with the matter by the D P&E O' to 6. Persons belonging to the 'Gowda' community are entitled However certain norms pursue toddy tapping as their avocation' on avocation of toddy are prescribed to enable persons to carry and to his ski1l climb tree, fix pot tapping. A person has to show to test is tapping demonstration draw the toddy.
Therefore, of the Station House Officer' conducted under the supervision After the test is conducted, the Station House Officer submits report to the D. P&E. O. ln turn, the D P&E O takes decision based House Officer, it is seen on such report. From the report of Station to the tapping demonstration test' that though petitioner attended of tapping test i e making he did not complete all the levels and tie up the pot to the tree' except smooth face, rough face -4 climbing tree. In other words, the Station House Officer seems to be reporting that except climbing tree, petitioner did not complete all the other paramerers. 7. The photographs enclosed to the material papers set discloses that petitioner tvas seen ciimbing the tree, but he was not carrying the pot. It is not known how the petitioner was permitted to climb the tree without carrying the pot. There is no discussion on this aspect in the report of Station House Officer.
It is also strange to notice that Section 63 ol the Telangana Excise Act provides remedy of appeal against the decision of District Prohibition and Excise Officer and under this provision, the aggrieved person has 45 days time to prefer the appeal. Strangely, the D. P&E. O fixes only two weeks time to prefer appeal. Can it be assumed that D. P&E. O was not aware of the statutory provision or he was deliberately fixing the lesser time, contrary to the statutory mandate, only to harass and create confusion in the mind of the petitioner. This observation is made having regard to the allegations levelled in the affidavit hled in support of the writ petition that at the instance of local politicians, proper test was not conducted and infact, petitioner was rcpeatediy advised to meet politicians to get his test cleared. 8.
Having regard to the deficiencies noriced in the proceedings impugned and the manner in which test was conducted, this is a fit case to direct the respondents to conduct fresh tapping demonstration test. 9. Respondent Nos 7 and 8 are working as District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and Station House 1.
\i Medchal- and Excise Station' Quthbullapur' Officer, Prohibition are made Certain allegations Malkajgiri District respectively' at writ petition is disposed of in the writ petition' As against them on the said expressed Stage, no opinion is the admission 7 and 8 to open to respondent Nos and it is always allegations if in future petitioner on the allegations levelled' raise objections petition against them before this Court or comes out with any petitioner However' as in the Department' before higher authorities the toddy tapping on them in conducting expresses apprehension fresh test' not involve in conducting they should test objectively, proceedings are The impugned is allowed 10.
The writ petition with the following directions: is remanded set aside and the matter Excise' of Prohibition and Commissioner (1) The Deputy House Officer Reddy is directed to nominate Station Ranga to conduct tapping any other District working in on the petitioner' demonstration test Officer' he of the Station House (2) On securing the report of same and pass orders on the eligibility shail consider the to become a toddy tapper' the petitioner is nominated to conduct The Station House Oflicer who t3) indicate the date and time of test in advance to the test shall the petitioner' (4) The petitioner shall appear on thc said date The the shall video record Station House Officer concerned proceedings to said video recording proceedings and submit and Excise' Ranga of Prohibition the Deputy Commissioner Reddy along with his report. petitioner shall bear the costs of vide recording.
(5) The Station House Officer shall conduct the toddy tapping test un-influenced by the allegations levelled against respondent Nos 7 and 8 in the writ petition and afford fair opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the toddy tapping test. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-M. MANJU ASSISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. 4 The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Medchal lvlaikajgiri District. The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Sangareddy Disirict at Sanqareddv. 'and 6 The Prohibition and Excise lnspector/Siation" Hous"e Officer, Prohibition Excise Station, Quthbullapur, IVedchal-lValkajgiri District. 7 One CC to Sri V.
Ravi Kiran Rao, Advocate IOPUC] B Two CCs to GP for Prohibition and Excise, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] I Two CD Copies. IVP IGH COURT DATED:1411212020 \ e s TA 1 t{ ( 2CI21 o 0 2 JAN o 1 * k t ORDER of 2020 WP. No. 21950 THE WRIT PETITION ALLOWING COSTS WITHOUT n\ tr ;*p, )t . 1\,--\--
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.