CHINTAPALLI AGENCY TALUK ARRACK SALES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ETC. versus SECRETARY (FOOD AND AGRICULTURE) GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ETC.

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 28-09-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

5 63 
CHINTAPALLI AGENCY TALUK ARRACK SALES 
A 
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ETC. 
v. 
SECRETARY (FOOD AND AGRICULTUP.E) GOVT. OF 
ANDHRA PRADESH, ETC. 
September 28, 1977 
[P. K. GOSWAMI, P. N. SHINGHAL AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, section 77(2)-Wllftlier 
1na11datory-Whether the orders passed in revision invalid for 11on-cu1npliance 
with s. 77(2) and non-affording an opportunity ro 
the 
person 
prejudicially 
affected-Scope vf s. 77(2). 
The appe1lants are the registered societies under the Andhra Pradesh 
Co-
operative Societies Act and the area of operation, as provided by the bye-laws. 
was for the entire taluk with a view to grant arrack licences to them in respect 
of the arrack shops within the said taluk. To spread the co-operative movement 
at the village level the tribals, in the various villages in the taluk, 
were 
also 
permitted to form their own village co-operative societies and to ask for grant 
of licences of their village shops in favour of the respective village societies and 
enter into the liquor trade. 
After the village societies were registered on 
4th 
October 1975. the Deputy Registrar (Co-operative Societies), gave a notice tt._1 
the appellants u/s. 16(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative 
Societies 
Act 
1964 calling upon them to amend their bye-laws so as to restrict their area of 
operation only to the taluk headquarter~. 
The revision petition filed by the Chintapalli Agency Society against the said 
orders of Deputy Registrar was allowed by the Registrar on 10-12-1975 directing 
the District Co-operative Authorities to recommend the case of the appellants for 
grant of licence for all the shops situated within the taluk for the excise year 
1975-76 ending with 30th September 1976. 
As the licences had already 
been 
granted in favour of the' villa_ge societies. the orders could not be given effect to 
for the year 1975-76. 
However, the licence was granted for the year 1976-77 
ending with 30th September 1977 in favour of the 
appellants. The 
village 
societies preferred revision petitions under s. 77 of the Act against the orders of 
the Registrar dated 10-12-1975 before the Government. On 
the 
very day. 
namely, 6-10-1976 when the respondent-village societies filed their revision peti-
tions before the Government, the appellants also filed an application before the 
Govei;-nment disputing the claim of the village societies 
followed by another 
application dated 28-10-1976. 
On 5-11-1976, the appellants 
prayed 
to 
the 
Government for an opportunity to file their counter in the revision petition filed 
by the resPondent-village societies. 
The Government. however, 
without 
any 
n·otice· to the appellants passed final orders on 4-12-1976 allowing the t\\'O revi-
sion petitions filed bv the village societies and set aside the orders of the Regis-
trar dated· 10-12-1975. The Government also "requested" the Excise Superin-
tendent, Visakhapatnam, to take action u/s. 32 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Excise 
Act 1968 for withdrawal of the licence already grant1?d in favour of the appel-
lants and· to issue a fresh licence amending the area of operation restricting tt 
only to Chintapalli village. 
The writ petitions filed bv the appellants w~re dis-
missed by a common judgment dated 27th January 1977 by the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court. 
Allovdng the appeals by special leave, the court 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: (1) Section 77(2) of the Andhra Pradesh 
Co-operative 
Societies 
Act 1964 is a mandatory provision. The view of the High Court that this pro· 
vision can be by-passed by resort to d~lving into corresoondence bet¥leen the 
H 
appel1ant and the Government is not correct. The minimal requirem~nt u/s. 
77(2) is a notice informing the opponent about the application and 
affordinr. 
hi:n1 an opportunity to make his representation against whatever ha~ b~en alleged 
•
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] [ S.C.R. 
in his petition. It is true· that a personal hearing is not obligatory but the·. mini-
mal requiren1ent of the principles of natural justice which are ingrained 
in 
s. 
77(2) is that the party ¥:hose rights are going to be affected and against whon1 
some allegations are made and some prejudicial orders are claimed should have 
a written notice of the proceedings from the authority disclosing the grounds of 
complaint or other objection preferably by furnishing a copy of the petition on 
which action is contemplated in order t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.