Telangana High Court
WP/19147/2006 of M/s.Maruthi Restaurant AND Bar, rep. by its Licensee Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition AND Excise, on 22 December 2006
Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.19147 OF 2006 DATED: 22nd December, 2006. Between : Teegireddi Subba Rao ... Petitioner And 1. The Commissioner, Proh. & Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad and others. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.19147 OF 2006
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO.19147 OF 2006
DATED: 22ndDecember, 2006.
Between :
Teegireddi Subba Rao ... Petitioner
And
1. The Commissioner, Proh. & Excise,Nampally, Hyderabad and others. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIWRIT PETITION NO.19147 OF 2006
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action ofthe respondents 1 to 4 in not taking action against the 5threspondentwho is allegedly running a Bar and Restaurant illegallywithoutobtaining anylicence under the Statutory rules as arbitrary and illegal.In response to the notice ordered, the Prohibition & Excise-Inspector filed a counteraffidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4th-sating that the 5respondent isholding a licence in FormA4 and heis selling liquor in capsule bottles. The allegation that the 5threspondent is carrying on business contrary to the conditions oflicence has been denied and it is stated that the Station House Officer,Rajahmundry (South) and Assistant Prohibition & ExciseSuperintendent, Rajahmundry E.S. Task Forcehas beenregularlyconducting raids in the area, but the 5threspondent was never found tobe carrying on business in violation of Statutory Rules.
th-The 5respondent also filed a separate counteraffidavitdenying the allegations and stating that he has been carrying onbusiness strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of leasegranted in his favour.The 5respondent also filed a separate counteraffidavitdenying the allegations and stating that he has been carrying onbusiness strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of leasegranted in his favour.
No Affidavit-in-Reply is filed by the petitioner and no othermaterial is placedbefore this Court contradicting the version of therespondents.
In the circumstances,no further enquiry is necessary in this writ petition.
Accordingly, recording the Statement of the respondents in their-counteraffidavits, the Writ Petition is disposed of.No costs.
_______________
G. ROHINI, J.
Dt. 22-12-2006gbs