Disposed

E Narsimulu Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Jun 2023WP/46013/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a representation for a TFT licence. The High Court directed the respondents to examine if the Gram Panchayat formation affected the existing Toddy Tappers Society's area of operation before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The High Court quashed the respondent's action of not considering the representation and directed them to examine the area of operation before deciding on the licence.

E Narsimulu Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:46013 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

E.Narsimulu Goud, s/o E Thimmaiah Goud, age- 30 years, Occ- Toddy Toppar, Rl/o Muchhoninipally village, Gaftu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETIT|ONER

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Excise Commissioner, at Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶13

The Proh and Excise Spurintendent of Excise, at Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶14

The Gram Panchyat Muchinpally village, rep by it Village Secretary Muchunpally village Gattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal diskict.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the action of the 3rd respondent not consider the representation dated 1510712021 for issuance of TFT Licence for Mucchonipally village Jogulamba Gadwal district to the petitioner the respondent No.3 not consider the petitioners representaton dated^'15-07-2021 the action of the respondent No.3 is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia^.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SR! G.RAJESHWAR RAO Gounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HC)N',B LI' SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR T]EDT,Y

¶20

\ /RIT PETITION No.46O13 of 2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Tlris rr. il petitior is filed seekrng to rlec.lzuc thr: action of respon<lr: rt No.3 in not considering the rcp r., .se;1tation, dated 15.i.)/.)O2l for issuance of TFT _i,:crce for Muchin:Lp:tll ,, Village. Jogulamba Gadrval I)istr.ict to the petition,. r, ar i legal and arbitrary..

¶23

Th,:: p, tiLioner claims to be a to<1d1. 1:rppc,r and perman,rnl 'esident ,tf Mur:hinapally village of Gattu Mandal, Jor3 rlrrmba Cadu,al District. It is thr: f-tr.thr,r case of the ]-reti:i >r er thar respondent No.3 hacl is;r,,ued TFT licence t.tid= ).cf-oce No.G/ 18/2OO7-08 dated ltl.Ot>.2)lZ in favour cl- Siri E. Palle Raman Goud S/o Thimrr:riah Goud for Mittado<l' li village for the sale of toddy for r_ lre period from i4.()6. ) )17 to 30.09.2017 and the salne ./;is; renewed from timr: tc irre.

¶24

It is th:: contention of tl-re learned coun;r.[ for the petitioner tl- .lt as per the Gazette of Gove -rrmc.nt of Telangana, M uchinapally village rvas formed :rs Gram

¶25

¶26

¶27

CVBR.^J WP-460^{t 3 2012}

¶28

was issued^{in favour of} PanchaYat^{and that no TFT licence} any of^{the resident of MuchinapallyGram PanchaYat} therefore,^{the petitioner' who is the permanent residentof} MuchinPallY^{Village'isentitledfor TFT licence for} MuchinaPallY^{GramPanchaYat'}

¶29

¶30

for 4.^{Learned Government Pleaderappearing} Prohibition^{and Excise submits that there is a} ToddY Scoeity^{LimitedatMittadoddi'} Tappers^CooPeratrve It is further^submitted ThummalaPallY^{and MuchinaPallY'} of Section^{6 of the Telangana} that^as Per^{the Provisions} 1964^{the existing societY is} CooPerative^{SocietiesAct'} havingitsareaofoperationinMuchinapallyVillageand the brother^{of the petitionerby name Sri E'shekarGoudis} still continuing^{as a memberof the Societyand gettingthe} services^{of the society' the representation of the petitioner} seeking^{issuance of new toddy licencewas not considered} as he^{is not entitledfor the same'}

¶31

As per^{the Gazette notifrcation' Muchinapallyvillage} was carved^{out as a Gram Panchayat and in view of the} are^directe{to above^{circumstances'the resPondents}

¶32

¶33

( 'llt{, J \'p^-l()()l.r l0ll

¶34

examir-re [ ] r^-el)resen tation, dated^15.O72O2. '^{,'ll('ther the} said Ciran-L FanchzrYa[ rs forming^{part c} f^thtrc I^{of the} operation c-thc existing Tociclv Tappers^{Coope;l ivt: Socicty} end iI- tl e s,rnre is not forming^{part o- the lre:t of the} existinrl so :ir:t1,, the petitioner's^{represenleLti ;} r^{may be} consid€rec lbr granting TFT licence and if rht ';aitl^viilage includes irs p.rrt of area of operation^{of the c'xi:;r. ng society,} the per tio.-r :r's case may be considered its^{mt tl.ber of the} said so<:iet1i a'ter followir-rg due^procedure and¹¹ -er^issuing notice to th,: existing societ,t, and^pass approl^t' ate^orders in accordzur :e with lau,.

¶35

W'rth t re above direction, the Writ Petitron ir; d sposed

¶36

of. There sl- all be no order as to costs

¶37

As a s:quel, miscellaneous petitions^pentlirrg, if^any,

¶38

shall ste n<l r 1o sed

¶39

STY.N. SRIHARI ASSlsLr,'llI',REGlsrRAR {iE'CI5N OFFICER

¶40

//TRUE copy//

¶41

To, 1 The .Prinr:ip;r Secretary, State of Telangana, (Excir;e) Department, secrelanat, hyc 3r load.

¶42

2 The Excise C:n missioner, at Jogulamba Gadwal District. a n_d [] cise Spurintendent of Excise, at Jogulambrr Gadwal District.

¶43

4 Il l.he ".itgl', Village S,).1 ettry, Gram Panchyat Muchinpally village, - lvlucirunpally village Gattu lrla rdal, Jogulamba Gadwal district.

¶44

5 one cc to SFit r;.ttAJEsHWAR RAO Advocate lopucl 6 Two CCs t:, GF)^:C)R PROHIBITION EXCISE, Hi'qh c)ou',rt fo - the State of Telangana at ry lerabad. [OUT]

¶45

1. Two CD Copie ::;. BS K GJ P

HIGH COUR T

DATED:1510 )12023

ORDER

WP.No.460'13 of 2022

,'
[ 6 Jljl 2[n
,,i
/

¶52

DISPOSING^()F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC STS

¶53

',1-1
<br>\0
.L 2
.,4

E Narsimulu Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E Narsimulu Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gunda Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Smt. Perelli Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana

G. Uday Kiran Vs The State of Telangana

Arqam High School Vs The State of Telangana

Kayithi Rajithamma Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Azeem Vs The State of Telangana