A. NADAMUNI AND ORS. versus THE PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COMMISSIONER, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 13-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

l 
A 
A. NADAMUNI AND ORS. 
~-
v. 
THE PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COMMiSSIONER, 
NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD AND ORS. 
B 
JANUARY 13, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
-7--
Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 : Sections 19 and 
21-Toddy tappers Co-operative Society-Superintendent to Excise-Also 
c Registrar of Cooperative Societies-Power to disqualify members-Rules re-
quiring that the toddy tappers Co-operative Society should consist of members-
who are really and actually i11 the avocation of tappers Writ challenging mem-
bership of petitioners-111te1im dissection by High Court-Competent authority 
concluding that petitioners were not tapers-consequentional removal from 
D membership-Decision confinned by Hif!ft Court-Rejection of contention 
that the R0gistrar (Superintendent of Excise) has no power to remove them 
'f-
from membership of Society-Held, power under Section 19 in the matter of 
admission of the members of the Society, was delegated to the Superintendent 
of Excise-As a consequence, it is not necessary that there should be an express 
E 
separate confe1111ent of power of the Registrar under Srction 21 on the Super-
intendent of Excise to disqualify membe,._ T71e view taken by the High Coult 
is not vitiated by any e1ror of law WQITanting inteif erence. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 25281 of 1996. 
--
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.96 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.A. No. 1437 of 1996. 
L.N. Rao, S.U.K. Sagar and V.S. Reddy for the Petitioners. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This special leave petition has been filed against the Order of the 
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court 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. -
H 11385/96. 
226 
A. NADAMUNI v. PROHIBITION & EXCISE COMMR. 
227 
---1-. 
The only question for our consideration is : whether the Superinten- A 
dent 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· di~ql!alify an existing member of the Srikalahasthi 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 B 
tapping the Toddy trees 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 avocation 
of tappers and are allotted palm era trees for tapping toddy as their sources 
of livelihood. On a Complaint that non-tappers were admitted and are c 
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 te~t, 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 D 
...} 
experience etl:. 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 
E 
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, F 
the Superintendent of Exicse 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 
G 
shall be disqualified for being admitted as, and for being, a member, in the 
circumstances enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). Clause (aa) was also 
... 
introduced in 1988 and thereby another ground for disqualification came 
_
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.