Back
1990 Supreme(AP) 394
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
B.Srinivas Goud, Excise Superintendent - Appellant
Versus
R.R.Dist. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-19-90
The authorities cannot refuse to issue a license to the auction purchaser based on an old representation from the public that was not considered at the time of publishing the auction notice.
Headnote:
EXCISE - LEASE OF RIGHT TO SELL LIQUOR IN RETAIL - SELECTION OF PREMISES - ANNOUNCEMENT OF SHIFTING OF SHOP - VALIDITY - A. P. EXCISE (LEASE OF RIGHT TO SELL LIQUOR IN RETAIL) RULES, 1969 - RULE 4 - A. P. EXCISE (ARRACK AND TODDY LICENCES GENERAL CONDITIONS) RULES, 1969 - RULE 5.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the highest bidder at an auction for a toddy shop, challenged the refusal of the Excise Superintendent to issue a license for the shop in the existing premises due to objections from some associations and organizations. The petitioner claimed that no announcement was made at the auction about shifting the shop and that he had obtained a no-objection letter from the owner of the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the auction notice published seven days prior to the auction mentioned the existing premises as the place of business and that there was no evidence of an announcement being made at the auction hall about shifting the premises. The court also noted that the authorities had failed to take action on a representation from the public regarding the location of the shop, which was made long before the auction notice was published.
Issues: 1. Whether an announcement was made at the auction about shifting the shop. 2. Whether the authorities could refuse to issue a license to the petitioner based on an old representation from the public that was not considered at the time of publishing the auction notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities could not refuse to issue the license to the petitioner based on an old representation from the public that was not considered at the time of publishing the auction notice. The court also held that the authorities had failed to provide evidence of an announcement being made at the auction about shifting the shop.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to issue the license in respect of the toddy shop in the existing premises to the petitioner for the excise year 1990-91.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is the highest bidder at the auction held in respect of begumpet toddy shop for the excise year 1990-91. The shop is located in the premises bearing No. 1-11-242/1 at shamlal Building, Begumpet, since several years. Immediately after the auction, the petitioner made a cash deposit of one month s rental and 2% earnest money as per Rule 16 of the A. P. Excise (Lease of right to Sell: Liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969. He has also complied with all other formalities for getting the licence. The petitioner has also entered into an agreement with the owner of the premises and obtained a no-objection letter for the location of the shop in the existing premises and requested the authorities to issue the licence. But the Excise Superintendent, i. e. , the 1st respondent herein, declined to issue the licence on the ground that there are some objections from some associations or organisations not to grant a licence at the said premises. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue the licence in respect of the Toddy Shop in question in the existing premises.
( 2 ) THE petitioner s case is that the existing premises where the shop is now located, is in conformity with Rule 5 of the A. P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy licences General Conditions) Rules and the authorities are bound to issue the licence. But according to the respondents there were some complaints and objections from the people residing in the locality and therefore an announcement has been made on 22-9-1990 itself in the auction hall that the toddy shop will not be allowed to function at the existing premises and the auction purchaser has to select a suitable place in accordance with rule 5 of the above Rules. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner was physically present at the time of auction and he was declared as the highest bidder and he was well aware of the announcement that has been made by the excise authorities in the auction hall. The petitioner has denied that there is any such announcement that was made by the excise authorities and he is entitled for the licence.
( 3 ) THE point that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether any announcement with regard to the shifting of the shop, as stated by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, is made or not and whether the petitioner is entitled for the licence as per Rule 5 of the A. P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) rules, 1969 ( the Rules for short) as amended by GO Ms No. 294 dated : 28-3-1989.
( 4 ) THE only objection that has been taken by the authorities is that the petitioner has not selected any other suitable site in spite of the announcement that has been made in the auction hall at the time of auction on 22-9-1990.
( 5 ) THE premises has been notified as the premises for carrying on the arrack business one week prior to the date of auction. Admittedly there is no mention in the notification about the shifting of the shop in the notification. Besides, it is specifically mentioned that the existing premises is the place for carrying on the business.
( 6 ) IT may be apposite to notice rule 4 of the A. P. Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969. which deals with the procedure about the auction notice. "4. Auction notice : (1) Where it is proposed to grant the lease for sale of liquor in retail in respect of a shop or group of shops, a notice of the proposed auction containing the particulars mentioned in sub-rule (2) shall be published atleast seven days in advance of the date of auction, by the Collector of the District in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette or the District Gazette or in such other manner as the Collector may deem fit. (2) The auction notice shall contain the following particulars, namely :- i) The name or locality of a shop or group of shops which sell liquor in the area : ii) The place of auction with time
