Telangana High Court

R.Sarath And 8 Others vs State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 17 August, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                      AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


              WRIT APPEAL No.524 of 2022

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



      Heard Mr. T.Sujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for

the appellants; Mr. G.Arun Kumar, learned Government

Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing for respondents

No.1 to 3; and Mr. T.Venkat Raju Goud, learned counsel

for respondent No.4.

2. This writ appeal has been preferred assailing the final

order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge

dismissing W.P.No.12506 of 2020 filed by the appellants as

the writ petitioners.

3. Appellants are members of respondent No.4. They

had submitted a representation before the Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise, State of Telangana, to take action

against respondent No.4 alleging that it was running the

toddy depot without valid licence. By the order dated

04.03.2020, Commissioner took the view that no action

was required to be taken against respondent No.4. It was

found that licences of toddy shop Nos.6 and 8 as well as

toddy depot belong to respondent No.4 were revalidated

and the revalidation was found to be not illegal.

Accordingly, the representation was rejected.

4. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid order was

passed in compliance of the orders of this Court in I.A.No.1

of 2019 in W.P.No.26094 of 2019 filed by the appellants.

5. Challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid

order dated 04.03.2020, the related writ petition came to

be filed.

6. Learned Single Judge by a detailed order dated

22.03.2022 did not find any infirmity in the order dated

04.03.2020 and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

7. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Single

Judge reads as under:

"5. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) As discussed above, there is no dispute with regard to conducting of the inspection, drawing of samples, conducting of panchanama and sending the same to the Government Chemical Examiner and submission of report stating that the samples collected from respondent No.4 Toddy Depot as well as its Shop Nos.6 and 8 as 'Alprazolam', NDPS substance. Basing on the said report, respondent No.3 has suspended the license in respect of Toddy Depot and shop Nos.6 and 8 of respondent No.4 society. Respondent No.4 was represented by it's the then President Mr. B. Vikas Goud had filed three writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos.22091, 22492 and 22499 of 2014. This Court has granted interim orders suspending the said suspension orders issued by respondent No.3. The said interim orders were in subsistence up to 24.07.2019.

ii) During the subsistence of the said interim orders and pendency of the above said writ petitions, one important event occurred i.e., the term of the Managing Committee of respondent No.1 was expired. Therefore, the elections were held on 23.07.2019. The said Mr. B. Vikas Goud lost in the said election. Mr. E. Seetharamulu Goud was elected as the President of respondent No.4 society. Therefore, Mr. B. Vikas Goud had withdrawn the aforesaid writ petitions on 24.07.2019 without even informing the Members of respondent No.4 society including the Managing Committee Members.

iii) It is relevant to note that the said Mr. B. Vikas Goud has filed the above said writ petitions representing respondent No.4 society in the capacity of the President. He cannot withdraw the said writ petitions unilaterally without there- being any authorization or resolution from respondent No.4 society. Having lost the elections, he has created problems to respondent No.4 society, may be by boring grudge against the

elected President Mr. E. Seetharamulu Goud. By virtue of the said withdrawal of writ petition on 24.07.2019, the earlier suspension orders issued by respondent No.3 were revived. Therefore, respondent No.4 was not in a position to contact its members. The petitioners herein have submitted representations to respondent Nos.1 to 3 with a request to take action against respondent No.4 pursuant to the said suspension of licenses and considering the report submitted by the Government Chemical Examiner wherein it was found that respondent No.4 society sold adulterated toddy i.e., Alprazolam, NDPS substance. Therefore, respondent No.3 has issued three show-cause notices to respondent No.4 society. Thereafter, respondent No.4 represented by its new President, Mr. E. Seetharamulu Goud, had submitted representation to respondent No.1, who in turn, vide proceedings dated 09.09.2019 stayed all further proceedings of respondent No.3 in Rc.No.A/357/2014 and A/359/2014, both dated 05.08.2019, and respondent No.2 shall take necessary action and send a detailed report along with the relevant records with specific recommendations to the Government for taking necessary action in the matter.

iv) There is no dispute that in the proceedings dated 09.09.2019, there is no mention about the proceedings in Rc.A/358/2014, dated 05.08.2019. Therefore, the petitioners herein have submitted a representation dated 30.09.2019 bringing the said fact to the notice of respondent Nos.1 and 2 with a request to take action against respondent No.4. They have also filed writ petition vide W.P. No.26094 of 2019 questioning the action of respondent No.2 in not considering the said representation. Respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 15.10.2019 had taken action staying all proceedings of respondent No.3 in Rc.No.A/357/2014, Rc.No.A/358/2014 and Rc.No.A/359/2014, all dated 05.08.2019 and requested respondent No.1 to rectify the action taken. The said facts

were specifically considered by respondent No.2 in the proceedings dated 04.03.2020. Respondent No.2 has given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners herein and respondent No.4.

iv) All the above facts would reveal that due to inadvertence, the proceedings in Rc.No.A/358/2014, dated 05.08.2019 were not mentioned in the proceedings dated 09.09.2019. The petitioners cannot take advantage of the same. However, considering the said inadvertence and also in compliance of the proceedings dated 09.09.2019, respondent No.2 has taken action staying all the proceedings in all the above three cases dated 05.08.2019 initiated by respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 has requested respondent No.1 to ratify the said action. Thus, respondent No.2 has passed a detailed order dated 04.03.2020 by giving opportunity to the petitioners as well as respondent No.4. Therefore, the petitioners herein cannot contend that respondent No.2 has no power to rectify or stay all the proceedings in the above three cases. Thus, the said contention of the petitioners is untenable.

v) As discussed above, till 22.07.2019 there were no orders. Only on 23.07.2019, elections to respondent No.4 society were held wherein Mr. B. Vikas Goud lost his election as President and one Mr. E. Seetharamulu Goud got elected as the President of respondent No.4 society. The same cropped up the issues. The said Mr. B. Vikas Goud withdrew the aforementioned three writ petitions without there being any authorization or resolution from respondent No.4 society. He cannot withdraw the said writ petitions unilaterally. It is relevant to note that respondent No.4 was represented by it's the then President Mr. B. Vikas Goud filed the above said three writ petitions, but not by Mr.B. Vikas Goud in his individual capacity. Therefore, he cannot withdraw the said

writ petitions on his own without there being any resolution from respondent No.4 society and he cannot create problems to the said society and its members.

6. CONCLUSION:

In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition fails, and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs."

8. We do not find any error or infirmity in the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. As already noticed above, appellants are members of

respondent No.4 and the request for cancellation of licence

appears to be on account of internal differences between

the parties. Commissioner had examined all aspects of the

matter and had also perused the relevant record,

whereafter he had recorded a clear finding that licences

were revalidated which were found to be not illegal.

10. In the light of the above, we do not find any good

reason to entertain the writ appeal.

11. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.