AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—The petitioners five in number are TFT licence-holders. They say that seven persons were granted TFT licences. The ration for seven TFT licence holders is 1150 Sendhi trees. It is stated that the maximum trees allowable to each TFT licence holders is 160 and the minimum is 30. The Excise Superintendent, Medak (the 1st respondent herein) is said to have (363) granted TFT licences to 31 persons to open additional counters. The grievance of the petitioners is that by granting TFT licences to 31 more persons the ration of the petitioners is reduced below the minimum and that as the grant of licence in favour of 31 persons affects their rights, notices ought to have been given to them by the 1st respondent before taking the proposed action of reducing their ration. In these circumstances the petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to reduce the number of trees allotted to TFT licence holders of Dharmajipet toddy shop.
The Assistant Excise Superintendent, Medak, filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It is stated, inter alia, that seven persons were allotted TFT licences which are valid till 30-9-1993 and that each of them was allotted 156 Sendhi trees. 51 persons of Dharmajipet have applied for additional counters as TFT licence holders in Dharmajipet for the year 1990-91. Their applications were forwarded by the Excise Commissioner. After enquiry it is found that 46 are tappers. Among them 34 persons were accorded permission for opening additional TFT counters in view of the excise policy for the year 1990-91. On a representation made against grant of licences to 46 TFT licence holders on the ground that 16 of them are non-tappers, re-tapping test was ordered by the District Collector. After the test 31 persons are declared eligible tappers. Accordingly TFT licences granted to 34 persons have been cancelled and 31 persons are granted permission for opening additional TFT counters, but they have not obtained licences so far. It is admitted that as per P. 1. 10 (iii) of the current excise policy, the maximum ration is 160 Sendhi trees and the minimum is 30 Sendhi trees. It is stated that the entire ration will be distributed among all the TFT licensees. It is further stated that there is no rule in the Excise Act or in the Excise policy for the year 1990-91 that the new members should not be admitted to the TFT scheme and if admitted the ration of trees and rentals should not be divided among the existing and the additional counters. It is also stated that there are no instructions regarding issuing notices to the existing licensees for reducing the trees to enable them to file objections before sanctioning additional counters. In these circumstances it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
Sri R.S. Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as 31 more persons are granted TFT licences, the ration of the petitioners will be considerably reduced; it will go even below the prescribed minimum therefore, the order granting TFT licences to 31 more persons is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that by virtue of granting licences to the additional persons, the existing rights of the petitioners are affected, there fore they are entitled to notice to file objections. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that having regard to the policy for the year 1990-91, TFT licences will have to be issued to the genuine tappers and if as a result of granting TFT licences to the genuine tappers, the ration of a person is getting reduced, he is not entitled to any notice as he has no vested right in the trees. From time to time, the learned Government Pleader submits, ration will have to be adjusted according to the number of tappers available in the village, therefore the impugned action of granting licence is legal and valid.
The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is : whether the action of the 1st respondent granting TFT licences to 31 persons in addition to the 7 existing tappers, reducing the ration of the petitioners without notice to them, is legal and valid.
It may be noted that according to Excise policy P. 1.10 (iii) for the year 1990-91 the number of Sendhi trees that can be allotted to a TFT licensee (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ''ration'') is, the maximum 160 and the minimum 30 trees. Fixing ration for eligible tappers depends on the number of tappers and the trees available. This will not present any difficulty at the first stage of allotment. The authorities may allot the maximum or the minimum or any number of trees between the permissible limit to each licensee. But when once the ration is allotted among the existing tappers and later additional licences are granted, the question of giving notice to the existing licensees may be considered in the following situations :
(i) When after first allotment, sufficient number of trees are available for fixing rat ion at subsequent stages.
If at a given time by virtue of granting additional TFT licences the ration of the existing licensees is not affected, they are not entitled to any notice. It is open to authorities to grant additional licences at one time or from time to time to any number of tappers, depending upon the ration available, So long as the ration of the existing licensees is not affected, the question of giving notice to existing licensees does not arise.
(ii) When after first allotment sufficient number of trees are not available.
If by granting additional TFT licences at subsequent stage the ration of the existing licensees is reduced, the principles of natural justice demand that before their rights are affected, they should be given an opportunity of being heard and for this purpose it is immaterial that there is no provision, for giving notice, either in the policy or in the rules, the law will presume that such a requirement is implied in every executive action. It may be noted that in no case, even by giving notice, the ration of existing licensees can be reduced below the minimum.
Admittedly in this case as a consequence of granting licences to the additional tappers, the ration of the petitioners is getting affected; as such they are entitled to notice to file objections for granting additional counters. As the notices have not been issued to the affected licensees before the proposed grant, I direct the respondents to issue notices to the existing tappers including the petitioners to file their objections to the proposed grant of additional counters. It is obvious that before granting licences to the additional tappers the authorities should consider the objections and then fix ration among all the TFT licence holders. I had occasion to consider the same question in W.P. No. 1687 of 1989 and expressed the same opinion in judgment dated 28-3-1990.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-.