ORDER The grievance of the petitioners in short in this writ petition is that respondent NO.1 made inequitable allocation of area of operation among the existing Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies within the municipal limits of Machilipatnam. 2. Respondent NO.2 society has been in existence for a long time. The petitioners have come into existence much subsequently. Evidently, a notice was issued by the Excise Inspector on 16-03-2005, wherein all the societies were informed that the area of operation will be revised among them in the meeting to take place on 19-03-2005. In the said meeting, while petitioner NO.1 was allotted 5 areas in 2 wards, petitioner NO.2 was allotted 5 areas in 3 wards and whereas respondent NO.2 was allocated 15 wards. Thereafter, the petitioners made separate representations dated 19-06-2005 bringing to the notice of respondent NO.1 that injustice was done to them in the allocation of area of operation. As the allocation of area of operation was not revised, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is stated that the petitioners submitted their representations for allocation of area of operation on 02-03-2005, which were placed in the meeting conducted on 19-03-2005 and that the meeting was postponed after discussions. He further stated that a notice was issued to the President of respondent No.2 society on 03-12-2004 directing him to submit proposals for amendment of its byelaws after deleting Javvarupet, Valandapalem, Chilakalapudi and Gilakaladindi areas from its area of operation, that as no such proposals were submitted by respondent No.2, by virtue of the powers vested in him, respondent NO.1 fixed the areas of operation for conducting society transactions. Respondent NO.2 sought to justify allocation of larger area of operation on the ground that it is a very old society and is in existence for a long time. 4. At the hearing, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that according to 2002-2003 excise policy, the area of operation has to be specified in terms of municipal blocks/ wards for each of the TCS/TFT in their respective bye-laws. He further stated that allocation of fixing the area of operation by splitting the wards into areas is illegal. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submitted that the revised policy contained in G.O.Ms. He further stated that allocation of fixing the area of operation by splitting the wards into areas is illegal. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submitted that the revised policy contained in G.O.Ms. No.767, dated 29-09-2004 envisages that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise shall approve the establishment of toddy shops as required under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to sell liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969. She, therefore, stated that it is not necessary that the area of operation in the municipality should be notified in terms of wards only and that an area in a ward also can be taken as the basis for fixing the area of operation. Learned counsel for respondent NO.2 supported the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 6. A society's area of operation should be reflected in the bye-laws of that society at the time of registration. The copy of the bye-laws furnished by the petitioners, at the hearing, shows that their area of operation is shown to be within the limits of Machilipatnam municipality. Therefore, respondent No.1, being the functional registrar, should ensure that the societies, which operate within the municipal limits of Machilipatnam municipality, should function with proper viability. Any inequitable and lopsided distribution of area of operation would only lead to loss to one society with undue benefits being conferred on another society. 7. A perusal of the areas of operation fixed by respondent NO.1 shows that while respondent NO.2 was given 15 wards, petitioner NO.1 was given 5 areas in 2 wards and similarly petitioner NO.2 was given 5 areas in 3 wards. Ex-facie, this allocation appears to be inequitable. Whether the areas of operation should be fixed in terms of wards or areas in the wards, it is the responsibility of respondent NO.1 to see that the areas so allocated are viable enough to sustain the societies. 8. As respondent NO.1 failed to undertake this exercise and see that reasonable areas are fixed for petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition with the direction to respondent NO.1 to reconsider the representations of the petitioners for including more number of wards as their areas of operation. 8. As respondent NO.1 failed to undertake this exercise and see that reasonable areas are fixed for petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition with the direction to respondent NO.1 to reconsider the representations of the petitioners for including more number of wards as their areas of operation. Before taking a final decision, respondent NO.1 shall issue notice to respondent NO.2 calling for its objections and after considering the said objections, he shall pass an appropriate order. He shall complete this exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.