T. MEENA KUMARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed to declare the order of the tirst respondent passed in G. O. Rt. No. 734 revenue (Excise-Ill) Department dated 3-4-2001 and the consequential order of the third respondent passed in Proc. No. C/ 3131/98 dated 26-4-2001 planting licence in favour of the fourth respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the writ petition are as follows: the petitioner was granted an IL-24 licence under the provisions of the A. P. Excise Act for the excise year 1998-99 and the same was renewed for the year 2000-01. The petitioner was running the shop at cuddapah without contravening any of the conditions of the grant of licence or the provisions of the A. P. Excise Act and the rules thereunder.

( 3 ) IT is stated in the affidavit that the fourth respondent herein was also granted licence for 1998-99 and the same was suspended on 15-5-1998 by the third respondent on the ground that the fourth respondent has contravened the provisions of the A. P. Excise Act. It is stated that aggrieved by the said suspension of the licence, the fourth respondent filed w. P. No. 14503 of 1998 before this Court but the same was dismissed on 4-9-1998. Later, he also filed another W. P. No. 15827 of 2000 seeking a direction to renew the licence but the same was dismissed on 17-1-2001 as infiuctuous. Thus, the fourth respondent has no licence for the excise years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.

( 4 ) IT is stated that the fourth respondent filed a revision before the first respondent questioning the orders of the third respondent wherein he cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The first respondent allowed the said revision on 3-4-2001 by giving benefit of doubt. It is stated that the saia order of the first respondent dated 3-4-2001 is not legal and valid.

( 5 ) IT is stated that the cancellation/suspention of the licence of the fourth respondent by the third respondent in the year 1998 became final and the fourth respondent without exhausting the appeal remedy provided under the Act has straight away invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the first respondent under Section 64 of the ap Excise Act. It is stated in the affidavit that as per Rule 4 of the AP Excise (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1969, every application for revision has to be filed within 60 days from the date of the order and the proviso to rule empowers the Government to condone the delay. It is stated that the first respondent allowed the revision without there being any application filed by the fourth respondent seeking condonation of the delay. It is also stated that allowing the revision of the fourth respondent would amount to increasing the number of shops in the locality and the same is contrary to rule 28 of the AP Indian Liquor and Foreign liquor Rules, 1970 and also on the excise policy of a particular year. It is submitted that by allowing the revision by the first respondent would virtually amount to grant of fresh licence and thereby bypassing the procedure of the grant of licence provided under the Rules, the first respondent issued go Rt. No. 734, Revenue (Excise-III) department dated 3-4-2001.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fourth respondent without allowing the appeal remedy provided under the Act has directly filed the revision and the first respondent has allowed the revision though it was filed belatedly and that too without availing the appeal remedy and hence the impugned order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that granting licence to the fourth respondent by suspending the order of the third respondent dated 15-5-1998 is contrary to rule 23 of the AP Indian Liquor and foreign Liquor Rules, 1970.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and excise submits that the writ petitioner is not aggrieved person to question GO Rt. No. 734 revenue (Excise-III) Departm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document