Disposed

Sri Pendurthi Rangarao v. The Tobacco Board Rep. by its Chairman Guntur

Telangana HC15 Jul 2014WP/18902/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposal of four writ petitions where petitioners, whose licenses were cancelled by the Tobacco Board for growing tobacco in unauthorized areas, sought relief. The Court permitted them to sell their stock pending revision proceedings but directed the Board to deduct specific amounts from the sale proceeds as per government notification.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to sell tobacco stock; Tobacco Board entitled to retain 15% of proceeds plus Rs.2/kg; differential amount returnable if petitioners succeed in revision.

Sri Pendurthi Rangarao Vs The Tobacco Board Rep. by its… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶4

Present

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.18877 of 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Pendurthi Jagadeeshwari, W/o. Ranga Rao, R/o. Chityala Village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

AND The Tobacco Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Guntur, Guntur District & 2 others

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.18883 of 2014

¶13

Between:

¶14

Sri Pendurthi Satyanarayana, S/o. Seetaramaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, Chityala (V), Gopalapuram (Mdl) West Godavari District.

¶15

.. Petitioner

¶16

AND The Tobacco Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Guntur, Guntur District & 2 others

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.18902 of 2014

¶19

Between: Smt. Pendurthi Rangarao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chityala Village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. AND The Tobacco Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Guntur, Guntur District & 2 others

.. Petitioner

.. Respondents

AND

WRIT PETITION No.19044 of 2014

¶24

Between:

¶25

Chunduri Venkateswarlu, S/o. Bala Ramaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Naguluppalapadu Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶26

.. Petitioner

¶27

AND The Auction Superintendent, Auction Plot Form No.23, Tobacco Board,

¶28

Ongole-II, Ongole, Prakasam District & 3 others

¶29

.. Respondents

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION Nos.18877, 18883, 18902 & 19044 of 2014

¶33

COMMON ORDER:

¶34

As the issue raised in all the writ petitions being common, they are disposed of by a common order. Counsels representing the parties have consented for disposal of writ petitions at the admission stage.

¶35

2. The petitioners in all the four writ petitions are registered as growers of Tobacco and granted licences as Barn Operator for the year 2013-14. They have accordingly grown tobacco. Having come to know that certain illegalities were committed by the petitioners, they were issued show cause notices and on consideration of the show cause notices and after affording opportunity of hearing, orders were passed by the competent authority cancelling the registration as growers and licences as Barn Operator for the year 2013-14. The original authority was of the view that the petitioners constructed unauthorized barn without obtaining licence for construction from the Tobacco

¶36

Board, cultivated tobacco in new areas (unauthorized area) which is illegal and operated unauthorized Barn without obtaining licences. These were the reasons for passing the order of cancellation of registration as well as licences. Aggrieved by the orders of the original authority, the petitioners have preferred revision petitions to the Tobacco Board in accordance with the provision contained in Rule 33(B)(4) of the Tobacco Board Rules, 1976. Along with the revision petitions, the petitioners have also filed applications for grant of stay of the order passed by the original authority. Hence, these writ petitions.

¶37

3. Heard Sri B. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.18877 of 2014, 18883 of 2014 and 18902 of 2014 and Sri K. Sarath, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.19044 of 2014 and Sri J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board.

¶38

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the revision petitions are not considered by the Tobacco Board so far without any justification and on account of the inordinate delay in considering the revision petitions as well as the stay applications, grave prejudice is caused to the petitioners. The petitioners are prevented from selling entire tobacco as the entire tobacco is now being exposed and it is subjected to loss. The petitioners will not be able to get the same price on account of the delay in disposal of their tobacco stock and it cannot be recouped. Such action of the respondent Board is illegal.

¶39

5. Learned Standing Counsel asserted that the revision petitions filed by the petitioners is scheduled to be taken up by the Tobacco Board in its meeting on 25.07.2014 along with the stay applications and, therefore, the matter will be considered by the Tobacco Board on that date. It is further contended that as per the notification issued by the Government of India in S.O. 1592 (E), dated 24.06.2014, while permitting the sale of tobacco by unauthorized growers, the Board is entitled to deduct an amount of Rs.2/- per kg and 15% of the proceeds of the sale (including a normal service charge of 1% of proceeds payable by growers). In other words, unauthorized growers are required to pay 7.5% more than authorized growers. Learned Standing Counsel contends that on account of the order passed by the original authority cancelling the licences and the registration, the petitioners have become unauthorized growers and, therefore, they have to contribute an amount of Rs.2 per kg. and 15% of the proceeds of the sale (including a normal service charge of 1% of proceeds payable by growers) in accordance with the Government of India notification.

¶40

6. In view of the fact that the Tobacco Board is scheduled to hear the revision petitions filed by the petitioners on 25.07.2014, the immediate grievance of the petitioners that there is inordinate delay in consideration of the revision petitions as well as stay applications by the Board is now attended to. Further grievance of the petitioners is that since the petitioners are not allowed to sell the tobacco lying with them, the crop would be damaged and, therefore, it would cause heavy loss to the petitioners. In view of the fact that even the unauthorized grower is entitled to sell the tobacco, as agreed by the learned

¶41

Standing Counsel, the petitioners shall be permitted to sell the tobacco lying with them. However, the Tobacco Board is entitled to retain 15% of the proceeds of the sale in addition to Rs.2/- per kg. (including a normal service charge of 1% of proceedings payable by growers) as fixed in the notification of the Government of India, dated 24.06.2014, while disbursing of the sale proceeds of the tobacco sold by the petitioners. If the petitioners succeed in the revision petitions, the Board shall return 7.5% additional amount retained by them by applying Clause B of the notification, dated 24.06.2014.

¶42

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. It is made clear that no findings are recorded on the merits of the contentions and it is left open for the petitioners to agitate in appropriate proceedings. It is needless to observe that the Tobacco Board shall grant personal hearing to the petitioners while the revision petitions are considered by the Board.

¶43

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶44

Date: 15^th July, 2014

¶45

Note: C.C. by three (3) days.

¶46

(B/o.) KL

¶47

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶48

WRIT PETITION Nos.18877, 18883, 18902 & 19044 of 2014

¶49

Date: 15^th July, 2014

¶50

Sri Pendurthi Rangarao v. The Tobacco Board Rep. by its Chairman Guntur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pendurthi Rangarao v. The Tobacco Board Rep. by its Chairman Guntur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

D.Neela Kumari, D/o.D.Kodanda pani Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gampa Haribabu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Chintala Suresh Kumar, S/o.Sri C.Subbanna, Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Mallu Padmalatha Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal

Chunduri Venkateswarlu, S/o Bala Ramaiah, Vs The Auction Superintendent, Auction Plot Form No. 23