Allowed

Kasipurarn Narayana Goud v. State of Telangana and 7 others

Telangana HC14 Dec 2020WP/21950/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Toddy Tapper's (TFT) licence. The Court found discrepancies in the report of the failed demonstration test and irregularities in the appeal timeline. It directed a fresh test to be conducted by a nominated officer from a different district, to be video-recorded and free from local bias.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings were set aside. A fresh tapping demonstration test was directed to be conducted by a nominated Station House Officer from another district, to be video-recorded, followed by c

Kasipurarn Narayana Goud Vs State of Telangana and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IVONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECETVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

wRtT PET|TTON NO. 21950 0F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

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.

¶8

..,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, Prohibitionand Excise} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 Th6 Commissioner of Prohibition and^{Excise, Government of Telangana,} Hyderabad.

¶12

3 The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and^{Excise,Sangareddy,Sangareddy} District.

¶13

4 The District Prohibition and Excise Officer,^{Medchal Malkajgiri District.}

¶14

5 The District Prohibition and Excise Officer,^{SangareddyDistrictat Sangareddy.} 6 The Prohibition and Excise lnspector/Station^{HouseOfficer' Prohibitionand} Excise Station, Quthbullapur,^{lVledchal-Malka.jgiriDistrict.}

¶15

7 Sri Gopagani Ganesh Goud, S/o.^{and age not known, District Prohibition and} Excise Officer, I,4ed chal-l\4a^{lkajg iri District,}

¶16

8 Sri Gaddam Venkatesh, S/o, and^{age not known, Station House Officer,Proh.} and Excise Station, Quthbullapur,^{lVedcha l-lt/a lkajg iri District.}

¶17

,,.RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 pleasedto} issue any appropriate writ, order^{or direction morein the natureof writ of Mandamus} declaring the Notice/Proceedings^{No.Cr.No.E2l87212020dated 01 .10.2020issued by} the Respondent No.4 i.e. District^{Prohibition and ExciseOfficer, Medchal, I/edchal -} IMalkajgiri District rejecting the application^{of the petitioner dated 15.9.2020for grant} of TFT Licence at TFT Centre,^{Bachupallivillageand 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} Excise Trees) Rules, 2007^{(issuedvide G.O.lr/s.No. '1228, Revenue(Ex.ll)} Department dated 9-9-2007 Published^{in AP Gazette (RS) Part-ll ExtraordinaryNo.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}

¶19

dated 21 .7.2015 as^{illegal, arbitrary, malafide exercise of power, unjustifiedand} violative of Articles^{14 and21 of constitution lndia and contrary to the provisions of} Telangana Excise^{Act, 1968 and the Telangana (Grant of Licenceto SellToddy,} conditions of Licence^{and Tappingof ExciseTrees) Rules,2007 and set asidethe} sa me.

¶20

IAN O: 1 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to directthe} Respondent No.5^{i.e. District Prohibition and Exciseofficer,Sangareddy,} Sangareddy District^{to conduct Tapping demonstrationTestafreshto the petitioner} and submit a report^{to this Hon'ble Court as per the provisions of the ExciseAct and} the Rules/circulars/instructions^{made thereunderpass such further or otherorders aS} the Hon'ble Court may^{deemfit and proper.}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI V. RAVI KIRAN RAO}

¶23

counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 to 6: AGP FOR PROHIBITIONAND EXCISE} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.7 & 8: NONEAPPEARED}

¶24

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶25

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.21950 of 2O2O

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.

¶30

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.

¶31

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 MedchalMalkajgiri 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.

¶32

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

¶33

-3

¶34

was directed^{to securerecord and to prorluce copyof the reportof} the Station^{HouseOfficer datedO 1 10 2Q2O referredtoin} impugned^{notice.LearnedAssistant Government Pleader produced} several documents^{including the reportof StationHouseOfficer'} However, it^{is seen from the recordthat report of the StationHouse} officerdated26.09.2020wasacknowledgedbytheofficeofthe District Prohibition^{and Excise Officeron 29 '09 '2O2O 'In this} report, the Station^{House Officer informsthe District Prohibition} and Excise^{Officer that petitioner failed in TappingDemonstration} Testatalllevelsandcertainobjectionswerealsoraisedbythe others stating^{that petitioneris not resident of Bachupally'}

¶35

While this report^{is dated 26 09 2020 acknowledgedby} D.P&E.O ot 29.09.2020,^{what was referred to in the impugned} notice is a report^{dated 01.10'2020No such report is placed} before this Court.^{This aspect creates enoughdoubtson the} manner of dealing^{with the matterby the D P&EO'}

¶36

Persons belonging^{to the 'Gowda'community are entitledto} pursue toddy tapping^{as their avocation' However certainnorms} are prescribed to^{enable personsto carry on avocationof toddy} tapping. A^{person has to show his ski1l to climb tree,fix pot and to} draw the toddy.^{Therefore,tapping demonstrationtest is} conducted under^{the supervisionof the StationHouseOfficer'} After the test is^{conducted,the StationHouse Officer submits} report to the D.P&E.O.^{ln turn, the D P&E O takesdecision based} on such report.^{From the report of StationHouse Officer, it is seen} that though^{petitioner attended to the tapping demonstration test'} he did not complete all^{the levels of tappingtest i emaking} smooth face,^{roughface and tie up the pot to the tree' except}

¶37

-4

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

Respondent Nos 7 and 8 are working as District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and Station House 1.\i

¶42

¶43

Officer,^{Prohibition and Excise Station'Quthbullapur'Medchal-} Malkajgiri^{District respectively'Certainallegations are made} against^{them in the writ petition' As writ petition is disposed of at} the admission^{Stage, no opinion isexpressedon the said} allegations^{and it is alwaysopen to respondent Nos 7 and 8 to} raise objections^{on the allegations levelled'if in futurepetitioner} comes out^{with any petitionagainstthem before this Court or} before^{higherauthorities in the Department'However'as petitioner} expresses^{apprehensionon them in conducting the toddy tapping} test objectively,^{they should not involve in conductingfreshtest'}

¶44

10.^{The writ petition is allowed The impugnedproceedingsare} set aside^{and the matteris remandedwith the following directions:}

¶45

(1) The^{DeputyCommissionerof Prohibition and Excise'} Ranga Reddy^{is directedto nominate StationHouse Officer} working in^{any other District toconduct tapping} demonstration^{test on the petitioner'}

¶46

(2) On securing^{the report of the StationHouseOfficer'he} shail consider^{the same and pass orders on the eligibilityof} the^{petitioner to become a toddy tapper'}

¶47

t3)^{The Station House Oflicer who is nominatedto conduct} the test^{shall indicate the date and time of test in advance to} the petitioner'

¶48

(4) The^{petitionershall appear on thc said dateThe} Station^{HouseOfficer concernedshall video recordthe} proceedings^{and submit said videorecordingproceedingsto} the Deputy^{Commissionerof Prohibition and Excise'Ranga}

¶49

¶50

Reddy along with his report. petitioner shall bear the costs of vide recording.

¶51

(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.

¶52

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

SD/-M.MANJU ASSISTANT REGI R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶58

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶59

The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District.

¶60

4 The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Medchal lvlaikajgiri District. The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Sangareddy Disirict at Sanqareddv.

¶61