1977 (9) TMI 118 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Government's order in revision u/s 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964.
2. Compliance with section 77(2) regarding the opportunity to make representation.
3. Competence of the Registrar to entertain a petition u/s 77 against the Deputy Registrar's order.
4. The Government's authority to issue directions to the Excise Department in the matter of settlement of arrack shops.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Government's order in revision u/s 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Government's order dated 4th December 1976, passed in revision u/s 77 of the Act, was valid. The Court found that the Government did not comply with the mandatory provision of section 77(2), which requires giving the appellant an opportunity to make a representation before passing any prejudicial order. The Court held that the Government's order was invalid due to non-compliance with section 77(2) and violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. Compliance with section 77(2) regarding the opportunity to make representation:
The Court emphasized that section 77(2) mandates that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation. The Government failed to provide the appellant with notice or an opportunity to make a representation against the revision petition filed by the village societies. The Court rejected the High Court's view that the appellant's voluntary applications sufficed as compliance with section 77(2).

3. Competence of the Registrar to entertain a petition u/s 77 against the Deputy Registrar's order:
The Court addressed whether the Registrar could entertain a petition u/s 77 when the proceedings u/s 16(5) were questioned by the appellant. It was argued that since the Deputy Registrar exercised the powers of the Registrar, the Registrar could not review his own order. The Court distinguished this case from Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, stating that the Deputy Registrar acts under the general superintendence of the Registrar, and any order passed by the Deputy Registrar is appealable to the Registrar u/s 76(2)(ii). Therefore, the Registrar was competent to entertain the revision petition.

4. The Government's authority to issue directions to the Excise Department in the matter of settlement of arrack shops:
The Court noted that the Government's order included a "request" to the Excise Superintendent to take action regarding the appellant's licence and issue fresh licences to village societies. The Court held that any "request" from the Government to a subordinate authority is tantamount to a positive direction or order, which the subordinate authority would find difficult to disregard. However, the Court did not express an opinion on whether the Government was competent to issue such directions in the exercise of its revision power u/s 77.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the Government's order dated 4th December 1976. The Court did not remand the revision petition to the Government due to the impending expiry of the arrack licences on 30th September 1977. The appeals were allowed, but no order as to costs was made.