GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 11-12-2002 passed by the 2nd respondent- commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, as illegal arbitrary and violative of the Excise Policy for the year 2002-2003 and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order dated 11-12-2002 in the interest of justice. ( 2 ) THIS case has a chequered career. The 4th respondent and 17 others made a representation to the 3rd respondent- prohibition and Excise Superintendent, medak District, Sangareddy seeking to admit them as members in the TCS at sadashivpet of Medak District. Pursuant to the said representation and basing on the report of the Sub-Divisional Prohibition and excise Officer, Sangareddy, the 3rd respondent issued instructions to the president of TCS, Sadashivpet-writ petitioner herein, to enrol them as members in the society, to which the President of TCS, sadashivpet alleged to have declined and as a sequel thereto they made a representation dated 19-7-2000 to the State Government to permit them to form a new society. Acting on the said representation, the Government in Memo dated 29-7-2000 forward ed the representation made by the 4th respondent and others to the 2nd respondent- commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, government of A. P, Hyderabad, for taking necessary action. The 2nd respondent after examining the matter, by order dated 21-3-2001 directed the 3rd respondent- prohibition and Excise Superintendent to form a new TCS for the 4th respondent and 17 others and allot ration/fixation of rental and grant licences to them. Aggrieved by the said order dated 21-3-2001, the petitioner- society filed W. P. No. 5684 of 2001 and also preferred revision before the Government. The Government by order dated 17-4-2001 stayed the proceedings dated 21-3-2001 directing formation of a new society. As against the said orders, the 4th respondent filed W. P. No. 10486 of 2001 and by order dated 23-5-2001 passed in WPMP No. 13075 of 2001, the order of stay dated 17-4-2001 passed by the Government in revision filed by the petitioner-society was suspended by this Court. Ultimately, the writ petition no. 10486 of 2001 filed by the 4th respondent herein was allowed and writ petition no. Ultimately, the writ petition no. 10486 of 2001 filed by the 4th respondent herein was allowed and writ petition no. 5684 of 2001 filed by the writ petitioner herein was dismissed by order dated 5-7-2001 on the ground that he has no locus standi to question the order dated 21-3-2001 and further observed that the revision preferred before the Government had become redundant. ( 3 ) AS against the said order dated 5-7-2001, the writ petitioner herein carried the matter in WANos. 1116 of 2001 and 7771 of 2001. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 1-7-2002 disposed of both the appeals observing that it was not permissible for the appellant (Writ petitioner herein) to extend or expand the area of operation beyond ward Nos. 1, 5, 6, 10,12 and 15 of Sadashivpet Municipality and it was open to the jurisdictional Excise superintendent to consider the application of the 4th respondent and 17 others to form a TCS and register the same and grant licences strictly in accordance with the provisions of the AP Co-operative Societies act and Excise Act (for short, the Act ). Aggrieved by the said order dated 1-7-2002 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WANos. 1116 of 2001 and 7771 of 2001, the writ petitioner herein filed SLPs no. 14420 and 14421 of 2002. The Apex Court by order dated 6-9-2002 disposed of the slps. The operative portion of the order dated 6-9-2002 reads thus:"upon hearing the submission made on behalf of the parties, we do feel it expedient to direct the Excise commissioner of the State of Andhra pradesh to deal with the grievances of these 18 new applicants upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicants. While affording an opportunity of hearing, due regard be had to the case of the existing societies who should also be allowed an opportunity of hearing in the matter. It is ordered accordingly. We, however, make it clear that any observation made by any of the forums would not have any bearing in the matter. " ( 4 ) IN pursuance of these directions issued by the Apex Court, the entire matter once again fell for fresh consideration before the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. It is ordered accordingly. We, however, make it clear that any observation made by any of the forums would not have any bearing in the matter. " ( 4 ) IN pursuance of these directions issued by the Apex Court, the entire matter once again fell for fresh consideration before the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent having examined the matter afresh, by the impugned order dated 11-12-2002 accep ted the request of the 4th respondent and 17 others for forming a new toddy Co-operative Society as Sadashivpet- ii, with three shops. The said proceeding dated 11-12-2002 passed by the 2nd respondent is assailed in this writ petition. ( 5 ) HEARD Mr. N. Subba Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for respondents 1 to 3. ( 6 ) IT is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-society that the society was formed in the year 1972 under the provisions of the Act and as per the bye- laws of the society, the area of operation of the society extends to the entire Sadashivpet municipality and hence formation of another society, on the representation made by the 4th respondent and 17 others, without following the due procedure prescribed under Section 15-A of the Act, is illegal. Learned counsel further contended that the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of prohibition and Excise has no jurisdiction to bifurcate the existing TCS and sanction a new TCS and that it is the jurisdictional excise Superintendent alone who is competent to form and register the TCS and grant licence in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is also contended that guideline No. 22 of the excise policy for the year 2002-2003 stipulates that creation of new toddy tappers co-operative society/tree for tapper may be done not later than 31-5-2002, and in view of the said stipulation, the representation of the 4th respondent and 17 others for creation of a new toddy tappers co-operative society could not have been considered, as the time fixed was over as on the date of consideration of the matter by the 2nd respondent and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in E. S. P. Rajaram v. Union of India, the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kasireddy v. State of A. P. and in k. Rajender v. Superintendent of Excise. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the 4th respondent on the other hand contended that the area of operation of the petitioner-society is confined only to six wards of Sadashivepet municipality viz. , 1,5,6, 10, 12 and 15 and therefore a new society for the rest of the areas within the Sadashivepet Municipality can be formed and thus the petitioner- society has no locus standi to assail the same as it is not operating in the rest of the wards. It is further contended that it is the petitioner-society who approached the supreme Court and invited an order in the earlier round of litigation, as otherwise the 2nd respondent would not have considered the matter and rather the matter would have been considered by the concerned jurisdictional Excise Superintendent and having invited an order of the Supreme court, it is not open for the petitioner- society to contend that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Learned counsel also contends that guideline No. 22 of the excise policy for the year 2002-2003 is intended to deal with the situations where the proposals in normal course for formation of a new society is to be considered in the excise year 2002-2003, as in this case the 2nd respondent has considered the matter in pursuance of the order dated 6-9-2002 passed by the Supreme Court, the stipulation of time limit in the excise policy for the year 2002-2003 has no relevance. ( 8 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for prohibition and Excise appearing for the official respondents submits that the 2nd respondent has not violated any provision of law much less the provisions of the Act and he only discharged his functions as per the directions of the Apex Court issued in the order dated 6-9-2002 and as such no exception can be taken in exercising the power conferred on the jurisdictional Excise superintendent by the 2nd respondent, otherwise he would be hauled up for contempt of Apex Court s order. Learned government Pleader also contends that the petitioner having participated in the proceedings and having contested the matter on merits before the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the order of the Apex Court in his own appeal, it is not open for him to now contend that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent having considered the matter objectively passed the impugned order, therefore no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the area of operation of the petitioner-society extends to all the municipal wards of the Sadashivepet municipality thus, formation of another society for the same Municipality without following the procedure prescribed under the Act is illegal. A perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the 2nd respondent- commissioner having considered the matter at length observed that as per the bye-laws of the petitioner-society which was registered in the year 1972, though sadashivepet, Siddapuram and Isharatabad constitute in its area of operation, it was held that there was acceptable material to show that Siddapuram and Isharatabad have got separate toddy co-operative societies and these two villages which originally formed part of the area of operation of the petitioner s society were excluded from its area of operation. It was further observed that under the revised excise policy brought into force from the year 1996-1997, the area of operation of societies situated in either municipality or municipal corporations was specified into blocks/areas, that the same policy is being continued till now, and as per this policy, the petitioner society s licence was renewed only for six wards i. e. , wards nos. l, 5, 6, 10, 12 and 15 of Sadashivapet municipality. It is to be observed that the petitioner society has not challenged the said excise policy of 1996-1997 in limiting its area of operation to six only wards i. e. wards nos. 1,5,6,10,12 and 15 of Sadashivapet municipality. When the area of operation of the petitioner-society is restricted to only six wards, and the same remained unchallenged, no exception can be taken for formation of a new society in respect of the areas excluding the six wards operated by the petitioner-society. 1,5,6,10,12 and 15 of Sadashivapet municipality. When the area of operation of the petitioner-society is restricted to only six wards, and the same remained unchallenged, no exception can be taken for formation of a new society in respect of the areas excluding the six wards operated by the petitioner-society. ( 10 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel was that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and it was only the concerned jurisdictional Excise superintendent who has got the jurisdiction cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the 2nd respondent Commissioner examined the matter only in pursuance of the order dated 6-9-2002 passed by the Apex court. Further it is to be observed that the order dated 6-9-2002 passed by the Supreme court directing the 2nd respondent to decide the dispute was passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner himself. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the petitioner now cannot contend that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the matter having participated in the proceedings and having contested the matter on merits before the 2nd respondent. Further it is to be observed that if the petitioner was aggrieved by that part of the order directing the matter to be considered by the 2nd respondent, instead of the concerned jurisdictional Excise superintendent, the petitioner ought to have sought for clarification of the order dated 6-9-2002. The petitioner has not raised any objection before the 2nd respondent commissioner of Prohibition and Excise that he has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Having invited an order from the Apex court in the appeal filed by him and having participated in the proceedings and contested the matter on merits, it is not open for the petitioner to say that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction, as the Apex court order dated 6-9-2002 binds him being a party to the proceedings. In view of this, the contention of the petitioner s counsel that the 2nd respondent Commissioner, prohibition and Excise has no jurisdiction cannot be accepted. In view of this, the contention of the petitioner s counsel that the 2nd respondent Commissioner, prohibition and Excise has no jurisdiction cannot be accepted. ( 11 ) THE last contention of the learned counsel that in view of the stipulation under guideline No. 22 of the excise policy for the year 2002-2003, the representation of the 4th respondent and 17 others for creation of a new toddy tappers co-operative society could not have been considered, as the time fixed was over as on the date of consideration of the matter by the 2nd respondent, cannot be accepted for the reason that the impugned order dated 11-12-2002 came to be passed in pursuance of the directions dated 6-9-2002 passed by the Apex Court, therefore the time limit stipulated in the excise policy for year 2002-2003 is deemed to have been extended till the adjudication of the dispute by the 2nd respondent. The decision of the Apex Court in E. S. P. Rajaram s case (supra) does not advance the cause of the petitioner s case as it is well settled by catena of judgments that power of the Apex Court to give directions under Article 142 (1) is not fettered or limited by any ordinary laws irrespective of the importance of the public policy on which it is founded. The decisions in Kasireddy s case (supra) and K. Rajender s case (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case, as in this case the 2nd respondent has considered the matter in pursuance of the directions issued by the apex Court in the appeal filed by the petitioner society. ( 12 ) ON the analysis above, I am of the considered view that the 2nd respondent- commissioner of Prohibition and Excise having examined the matter objectively and keeping in view that these 18 members who are otherwise eligible to form into a new society, as they have passed the tapping test, rightly accorded permission for formation of a new society as Sadashivpet-II with three shops. ( 13 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.