WP/24752/2004 of K. Bhaskar Reddy, Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 24752 of 2004

Between:

K. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. K. Thimma Reddy,

Naseeb Wines, Shop No. 273, D.No. 10-35, Station Road, Guntakal, Anantapur District.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2 The Deputy Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool.

3 The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur.

4 Md. Rafeeq, S/o Not known to the petitioner, R/o. D.NO. 1/50 Station Road, Guntakal, Anantapur District.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directingthe 1st respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner withregard to granting IL 17 licence in premises bearing D.No. 10/30 Station Road,Guntakal, Anantapur District in accordance with Rule 29 of the A.P. IndianLiquor and Foreign Liquor Rules and pass such other or further orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

The Court at the admission stage made the following ORDER:

Petitioner is the holder of IL 24 licence and had established a wine shop atGuntakal. The fourth respondent is said to have applied to respondents 1 to 3for grant of licence in form IL 17 in premises bearing No. 10/30, Station Road,Guntakal, Anantapur district. The petitioner contends that the location wherethe bar is proposed to be established by the fourth respondent is within theprohibited distance from his shop. He claims to have made representations torespondents 1 to 3 pointing out his grievance. Apprehending that hisrepresentations/objections may not be taken into account while considering theapplication of the fourth respondent, he filed this writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forProhibition & Excise.

The question as to whether the location where the fourth respondent proposedto establish bar and restaurant after obtaining the licence in form IL 17 is withinthe prohibited distance from the shop of the petitioner, cannot be ascertained atthis stage. Such aspects are governed by the relevant Rules framed under theA.P. Excise Act. The petitioner claims to have made representations dated29.11.2004 and 03.12.2004 in this regard. There is no reason to believe thatrespondents 1 to 3 would not take the same into account while processing theapplication of the fourth respondent.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 1 to 3 shalltake the representations said to have been made by the petitioner into accountbefore granting any licence to the fourth respondent in form IL 17. There shallbe no order as to costs.

30.12.2004

Note:

Issue CC in two days.

(BO)

ksld

To

1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2 The Deputy Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool.

3 The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur.

4 2 CCs to the G.P. for Prohibition and Excise, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT)

5 2CD copies.