WP/13890/2011 of P. Sanjeeva Reddy Vs Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

The petitioners, who are A4 licensees, filed this writ petition aggrievedby proceedings bearing Rc.No.B2/2/2010, dated 05.03.2011, of respondentNo.1, whereby he has directed the petitioners to shift the liquor shop from thepresent premises to another premises in the same ward and submit arepresentation for consideration with regard to shifting of the shop.

It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 that inresponse to the impugned proceedings, the petitioners have submitted theirexplanation and that this Court by order, dated 24.08.2011, directed to passappropriate orders considering the explanation submitted by the petitionersand not to give effect to the direction contained in the impugned order till suchdisposal.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excisesubmitted that so far, the petitioners’ explanation has not been disposed ofby respondent No.1.

In my opinion, as the petitioners were not given an opportunity to putforth their case before passing the impugned order, respondent No.1 oughtnot to have straight away directed the petitioners to shift the shop. Since thepetitioners’ explanation filed before respondent No.1 is stated to be pending,the latter is directed to consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with the governing legal provisions. Till a decision is taken onthe petitioners’ explanation, the direction to shift the liquor shop from theexisting premises as contained in the impugned proceedings shall not begiven effect to.

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.16819 and18212 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.2506 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous.

30[th] December, 2011VGB

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J