http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: A. NADAMUNI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE PROHIBITION & EXCISE COMMISSIONER,NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD &

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition has been filed against the Order of  the Division  Bench of the Andhra Pradesh, made on December 13,  1996 in Writ Appeal No. 1437/96 confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge, dated December 4, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 11385/96.      The only question for our consideration is: whether the Superintendent of  Excise who  is also Registrar for certain purposes of  Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short,  the ’Act’)  has  the  power  to  disqualify  an existing member  of the  Srikalahsthi  Toddy    Tappers  Co- operative  Society?   The  object   of  the  Society  is  to ameliorate the  economic conditions  of tappers by providing them means of livelihood by tapping the Toddy tress allotted by the  Excise authorities.  The provisions  of the Act, the rules  made  thereunder  and  the  by-laws  of  the  Society regulate the admission of the members. The toddy tappers Co- operative Society  should consist  of members who are really and actually  in the  avocation of  tappers and are allotted Palmera  trees   for  tapping  toddy  as  their  sources  of livelihood. On  a complaint  that non-tappers  were admitted and are  members of the Society at the behest of a member, a writ petition  came to  be filed in the High Court. Pursuant to an  interim direction  given by the High Court to conduct tapping test,  the competent  officers conducted the same in that behalf.  The authorities  came  to  conclude  that  the petitioners were  not the tappers as they did not fulfil the condition of  the tapping  experience etc,  and  accordingly were  removed   from  the   membership  which  decision  was confirmed by  the High Court in the writ petition as also in appeal.      It was  contended that the Registrar (Superintendent of Excise) has  no power  to remove  them  from  membership  of Society. The  primary contention raised in the High Court as reiterated  by  Shri  L.N.  Rao,  learned  counsel  for  the petitioners, is  that while  power under  Section 19, in the matter of  admission of  the members  of  the  Society,  was delegated to  the  Superintendent  of  Excise,  power  under Section 21,  namely, disqualification  for being a member of the Society  etc. was  not delegated  to him. Therefore, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Superintendent of  Excise was without jurisdiction to remove the petitioners  from the membership of the Society. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that admission of the members is  governed by  the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. Section  21 prescribes  disqualification  for  being  a member of  the Society.  Sub-section (1)  postulates that  a person shall  be disqualified for being admitted as, and for being a member, in the circumstances enumerated in cause (a) to (e).  Clause (aa) was also introduced in 1988 and thereby another ground  for disqualification came to be added to the existing grounds.  Under the  said clause (aa), a person who is not  eligible for membership of the Society under Section 19 is  disqualified for  being admitted as, and for being, a member of  the Society.  Under these circumstances, once the power of  non-admission of  a member  of the  Society  under Section 19  has been  engrafted in  Section 21 and delegated for removal  from membership  as envisaged in Rule 20 of the Rules, Superintendent  of Excise  has power  under  Rule  20 which empowers  him to  consider the  ineligibility of being removed from  membership under  Section 19, Section 19 power was  delegated   to  the   superintendent  of   Excise.  The inescapable   consequence    is    that    the    subsequent disqualification for  being a  member of  the  Society  also becomes available  under Rule 20 s a disqualification if the member ceases to be a tapper. It would be one of the factors to be  considered under Rule 20. As a consequence, it is not necessary  that   there  should   be  an   express  separate conferment of power of the Registrar under Section 21 on the Superintendent of  Excise. We, therefore, hold that the view taken by  the High Court is not vitiated by any error of law warranting interference.,      The special leave petition is dismissed