Remanded

E Naresh Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Nov 2023WP/25214/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition filed under Article 226 challenging the refusal to cancel nowkarnamas issued to two respondents as servants of a cooperative society. The petitioner, alleging illegal appointment, prayed for cancellation of the nowkarnamas and opportunity to be appointed instead. The Court disposed of the main petition on merits while remanding the matter for consideration.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition directed the District Prohibition and Excise Officer to examine the representation given by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after giving the nowkars an opportunity to be h

E Naresh Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 25214 OF²⁰²³

¶7

Between:

¶8

E Naresh Goud, S/o. E Krishna^{Goud, Aged about38 years, Oqq- M9qQ9r.of} toddv Taooers Cooperative^{Society, Shapur Nagar R/o H.No.3247l'llA'} ShaIur Na!ar, IDA J6edimetla,^{Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'l . The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Proh and Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Prohibition and^{Excise Officer, MedchalcumFunctional Registrar} for Toddv Taooers Cooperative^{Societies,UnderTelangana Cooperative} Societied Rci^{'t9o+. Pk;tNo.94,SyMo.236,3rd Floor,Sri Krishna Nagar'} Suchitra Roail,Quthbullapur,^{Medihal-lvlalkajgiriDistrict - 5oo055-}

¶13

The station House^{Officer, Prohibition and Excisestation,Qutubullapur.. Plot} - tto.t S, Godavari Homes, Vennelagadda.Quthbullapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 5000'19.

¶14

Prohibition and Excise Sub-lnspector,^{Prohibitionand ExciseStation'} Qulubullapur,^{Plot No.1 9, Godivari Homes, Vennelagadda,Quthbullapur,} Medchal-Malkajgiri District^{- 500019-}

¶15

The Toddy Tappers^{Cooperative Society, Sha-091 NtaOal.Rep.byits} President,Ch.M'allesh^{Gcjud,H.No.32-313, L.B. Nagar,Sl90u1} Nagar,Ouihbullapur,^{IDA Jeedimetla- t\4edchal-MalkajgiriDistrict- 500055}

¶16

V. Srisailam Goud, Sio:^{Laxminarayana, Occ. servantof Toddy T-gPPers} - cboJeiative Socieiv. Shapur Nagai R/o H. No.2-152,Venkatram Nagar colony' S.lrdram, Quthbullapur^{(M), Medahal-Malkajgiri District-500055}

¶17

T. Ashok Goud, S/o:^{lateAniaiah Goud, Occ. servantof Toddy T-appers} Coooeiative Societv, Shapui^{NaoarRl/o H.No.48-220,Plot No.125,Surya} Nagbr, Qutubullaptir^{(M), Medchal-Malkaigiri District - 500055.}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{the constitutionof lndra praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith,the High court maybe}

¶20

pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in th'3 nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 in Cr. No.1 06/Coop/2023 passed by the 2'd respondent in n,:t cancelling the nowkarnamas issued to sell toddy in 5't' respondent society in the names of 6th and 7th respondents as arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and againsl: the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to forthwith recall and cancel the nowkarnamas issued to 5tn respondent in the names of 6lh and 7rh respondents without giving any reasons, pursuant t,f, request dated.07.1O.2022 of the then PIC-chairman who is present President o1' 5th respondent.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to pass an order directing the 2nd respondent to forthwith stop 6'h ancl 7rh respondents from selling toddy, handling daily cash books, accounts books a nd sales registers in 5rh respondent shop by vesting the sa me in the members ,rf Srh respondent pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may tre pleased to pass an order directing the respondents herein to allow the petitionc'r herein who is a member of 5rh respondent to carry on toddy business in respect of the Sth respondent shop without any obstruction pending disposal ol the main Writ Petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G SURESH GOUD

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 4: GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI R. BALA SUBRAMANYAM

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 and 7: SRI SHIVA RAM REDDY

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BTIASKAR REDDY

¶31

WRIT PETITION t{o.25214 of 2o23

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶34

'...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order, dated 24.O7.2023 in Cr.No. 106/Coopl2023 passed by the 2nd respondent in not cancelling the nowkarnamas issued to sell toddy in 5th respondent's society in the names of 6th and 7th respondents as arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and against the principles o[ natural^justice..."

¶35

The petitioner claims to be a member of respondent No.5 society. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.S represented by its Managing Committee, without following the procedure as contemplated under Telangana Excise Act, 1968 and the Rules made thereunder, appointed respondent Nos.6 and 7 as nowkars. It is the further case of the petitioner that without considering his name, respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are outsiders of respondent No.5, were appointed as servants of the said society and according to the petitioner the same is illegal and arbitrary. It is the further case of the petitioner that stating said facts, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation to respoldqgt No.2, who is competent authority under the

¶36

=]rc

¶37

¶38

CVI}R. J \ o l5l l4 20ll

¶39

provisions o[ thc Tclangana State Excise Act, 1968 and Rulcs madc thereunder to cxamine the reprcsentation of tht petitioncr to appoint him as servant of respondent No.5 sor:iety. The grievance oI the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not considered his representation, till date.

¶40

A countcr affidavit has been trled by respondent No.5 stating that respondent No.5 is conferred with ttre powers to appoint Nou,kars as per the Rules framed Lrndcr G.O.Ms.No. 1228, Revenue (Ex.II! Department, date(l 19.O9.2OO7 and as per Rule 35 ol the Andhra Pradesh (Grant of Licence to sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2OO7 (for short "the Rules"), a licensee, wl-ro desires to have any l)erson as his employee for acting on his behalf as an agent or scrvant, shall make an application in that behalf to the Station House Officcr concerned, affixing court fee stamp of the value of rupcc one and obtain a Nowkarnama in Form A' on payment o[ a fees o[ rupees two. It is further stated in thc counter afhdavit that after following the proccdure as contemplatcd under Rule 35 of the Rules, responctent No.5 has appointed respondent Nos.6 and 7 as nowkars by:ssuing FormA certificatc commonly known as nowkarnamas.

¶41

¶42

¶43

CVI]R.^J \'P 15)la¹⁰²¹

¶44

this^{Courtdeems it} 4. ln^vtew of the^{said submissions'} etition^{directing respondent} appropriate^{to disPoseo[ the writ P} dated^{28.O8'2023submitted} No.2^{to examine the representatron'} ln strictlY and Pass approPriate^orders bv^the Petitioner State^Exctse of the^Telangana accordance^{with the Provisions} after^glvtng Act,^{f968and theRules made thereunder'} opportunity^{to respondent Nos'6 and 7'}