Telangana High Court

WA/2178/2004 of M/S.Laxmi Wines, Dharpally, Vs The Prohibition and excise Superintendent, on 31 December 2004

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 2178 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY

WRIT APPEAL No. 2178 of 2004

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/12/2004 inWP No. 9088 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

M/S.Laxmi Wines, Dharpally, rep., by its Proprietor Sri G.V.Ramana Reddy, s/o GangaReddy, r/o Dhamannapet (V), Dharpally Mandal, Nizamabad District.

..... APPELLANT

AND

1. The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dharpally Mandal, Nizamabad District.

3.The Station House Officer, Bheemgal P.S., Nizamabad District.

(R3 is not necessary party)

.....RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. V.TULASI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

The Court made the following :

ORAL JUDGMENT:

(per The Honourable Sri Devinder Gupta, Chief Justice)

Page 1 of 2

There is a dispute as regards population of the village in question. Notice was issued to thepetitioner-appellant along with the demand to pay higher licence fees. On the question thatwhether the population is above 10,000 or less than 10,000, which is seriously disputed,necessarily, reasoned order has to be passed by the concerned authority, namely,Licensing Authority, who is Respondent No.1 in this case. The grievance of the appellant isthat two other hamlets have been included in the village in question, which was not theposition and earlier, Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court. Following the same, weallow the Appeal and set aside the impugned order with direction that Respondent No.1 willhear the petitioner-appellant and pass appropriate orders. It will be open for the petitioner-appellant also to place material before the first respondent. The first respondent will proceedto pass reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. On communication ofthe same, petitioner will duly comply with the same without raising further objection.Respondent No.1 shall take appropriate decision within a period of four weeks from the dateof the receipt of a copy of this order, and, till then status quo as regards recovery shall bemaintained. No costs.

_______________________

DEVINDER GUPTA, C.J.

31.12.2004.

________________________

M.NARAYANA REDDY, J.

VR.

1. The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dharpally Mandal, Nizamabad District.3.The Station House Officer, Bheemgal P.S., Nizamabad District. (R3 is not necessary party)3.The Station House Officer, Bheemgal P.S., Nizamabad District. (R3 is not necessary party)

4. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, High Court Buildings,Hyderabad (OUT).Hyderabad (OUT).

5. Two CD copies.

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…