Andhra Pradesh High Court

WP/6561/2026 of V V V SATYANARAYANA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 14 June 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6561/2026 Between: 1. V V V SATYANARAYANA, S/O. V. NAKULUDU, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC

APHC010118222026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 6561/2026

Between:

1. V V V SATYANARAYANA, S/O. V. NAKULUDU, AGED 50

YEARS,

OCC

BUSINESS,

BAR

LICENSEE

(GAZETTE

SI.NO.2B/EG/GK/02) R/O. 4-75, KALAVALAPALLI ROAD, CHAGALLU MANDALAM, UNAGATIA, WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534 342.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PROHIBITION

AND

EXCISE

DEPARTMENT,

A.P.

SECRETARIAT

BUILDINGS,

VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATI,

GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, PROHIBITION AND

EXCISE, EXCISE COMPLEX, R.S.N0.88-2B, SAI VIHAR

APARTMENTS, POULTRY FARM ROAD, PRASADAMPADU (V), VIJAYAWADA-521108.

3. THE

DISTRICT

PROHIBITION

AND

EXCISE

OFFICER,

LICENSING AUTHORITY, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST

GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. THE RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the highhanded action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing Gazette No.36 dated 18.08.2025

for the License one Period for years 2025 - 2028 by fixing Retail Excise Tax (RET) at Rs.37,50,000/- for the year 2025-2026 by erroneously treating the population Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation as nearly 5,00,000 by including 11 villages in the Municipal Corporation even though they have not been merged in the Municipal Corporation till now without taking into consideration the population of 3,43,903 as per the 2011 census, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice. Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 2(t) and Rule 18 of the A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2025 and consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondent Authorities to re-fix the Retail Excise Tax (RET) payable strictly based on the official population of 3,43,903 as per 2011 census by classifying Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation in the population slab of below 5 lakhs and to accordingly fix the license fee at Rs.27,50,000/- for the license year 2025-2026 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the Retail Excise Tax (RET)

payable by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 18 of the A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2025 by taking the population of Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation as 3,43,903 as per 2011 census pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GINJUPALLI SUBBA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE

2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)

The Court made the following:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

ORDER:

Sri T.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel representing Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Naga Raju Pullagura, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition Excise collectively submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and has become infructuous and there remains nothing for adjudication.

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date: 15th June, 2026

RKS

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead