The Government, however, without any numberice to the appellant, passed final orders on 4th December, 1976, allowing the two review petitions filed by the village societies and set aside the order of the Registrar dated 10th December, 1975.
With the said recommendation staring in the face, the village societies apprehended trouble in the year 1976 77 and filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the Registrars order of 10th December, 1975.
On 6th October 1970, the Government suspended the operation of the order of the Registrar dated 10th December 1975 and further directed the Collector Cooperation Visakhapatnam to recommend the case of the village societies to the Excise Superintendent for the issue of licences for the excise year 1976 77.
On 5th November, 1976, the appellant prayed to the Government for an opportunity to file companynter in the revision petition filed by the respondents.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 27 1 77 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
On the very day, viz.,
3947 and 3987 of 1976, in which the impugned order was passed by the High Court and with which alone we are companycerned in these appeals.
The Excise Superintendent was also requested to issue thereafter fresh individual licences to all the village level societies in the Chintapalli taluk for arrack shops existing in their respective villages.
The village societies also, almost simultaneously approached the Government by way of revision under section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act, 1964 briefly the Act against the order of the Registrar of 10th December, 1975.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court against the aforesaid order of the Government dated 6th October 1976.
Having thus registered the village companyoperative societies briefly the village societies , the Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies gave a numberice to the appellant under section 16 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act, 1964, calling upon it to, amend its bylaws so as to restrict its area of operation only to the taluk head quarters.
Indeed the licences for 1976 77 were granted to the appellant for the entire area as recommended by the Registrar.
The appellant was registered by the Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies, Yelamanchili, on 26th September, 1975.
The appellant also field before the Government a similar applicationon 28th October, 1976.
With this purpose of initiating them into the liquor trade, the village societies were registered on 4th October, 1975.
This direction, however, companyld number be implemented since by that time the village societies had already been granted licences in respect of shops situated in the respective villages.
The High Court issued Rule nisi, but declined to stay the impugned order.
In the said order the Registrar number only set aside the aforesaid numberice of the Deputy Registrar but also directed the District Co operation authorities to recommend the case of the appellant for grant of licences for all the shops situated within the taluk for the excise year 1975 76 ending 30th September, 1976.
The appellants licence was companyfined to the area in taluk headquarters for the year 1975 76.
6th October, 1976, when the respondents filed their revision before the Government, the appellant filed anapplication to the Government disputing the claim of the village societies.
It was, however.
The appellant filed a petition of revision before the Registrar of Co operative Societies challenging the above numberice.
No stay orders companyld be obtained by the respondents and hence the licences, for 1976 77 companytinued with the appellant.
The petition was allowed by the Registrar by his order dated 10th December , 1975.
The High Court rejected this plea on the ground that from a perusal of the voluntary applications filed by the appellant it was clear that the appellant had anyhow met with the points urged by the respondents in their revision petition before the Government.
The area of operation of the appellant was provided in its bye laws was for the entire taluk with a view to grant arrack licences to it in respect of all the arrack shops within the said taluk.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
503/77 for Respondent No.
The question raised in this case by these two Societies has been decided by a companymon judgment of the High Court of 27th January, 1977.
503 504 of 1977.
Yenkatarama Sastry In CA No.
There was, however, an infection of the companyperative movement and it appears that trials in the various villages in the taluk were.
also encouraged by the Cooperative Department to form their own village companyperative societies and to ask for grant of licences of their village shops in favour of the respective village societies instead of granting all the licences of the taluk to a single society, such as the appellant.
503/77 for Respondent No.
Venkataramana, K. Rajendra Chaudhary and Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna for the Appellant.
Parmeswara Rao and G. Narayana Rao for Respondent No.
Yenkatarama Sastry In CA No.
3967 and 3987/76 respectively.
The appellant felt aggrieved by the, above order of the Government and filed two writ petitions Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Co operative Society Ltd. and the Paderu Taluk Tribal Arrack Sales Co operative Society Ltd. were registered as Co operative Societies by the Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies, Yelamanchili.
It is sufficient to state the facts appertaining to Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Co operative Society Ltd. briefly the appellant as these are companymon.
The underlying idea behind such a numberice was that the appellant should be given the licence in respect of shops situated in the taluk headquarters while licences in respect of shops Situated within the villages should be granted to the respective village societies which have since been registered.
