Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
V. ESWARAIAH, J.
G. Venkatesh —Petitioner
v.
Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others —Respondent
W.P. No. 215 of 2007
Decided on 01-03-2007.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. Raghuveer Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioner.
G.P. for Prohibition and Excise for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. M.V. Pratap Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.4.
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shops and Conditions of Licences) Rules, 2005 - Rule 5 - Tenderers And Licencees - Foreign Liquor - Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel for the fourth respondent. Petitioners are the successful tenderers and licencees in respect of shops at SI. of Gazette notification situated at Ward of Municipality and Mandai, notified by District Collector, who is the auctioning authority to auction the rights to sell Indian made Foreign Liquor/Indian Liquor by shops, under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shops and Conditions of Licences) Rules, 2005 first petitioner, who is the licencee in respect of Shop of Municipality and Mandai, offered highest bid and the second petitioner, who is the licencee in respect of Shop and Mandai, also offered the same amount of highest bid - Petitioners being the auction purchasers were granted licences in Form A-4 to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor by Shop at Gazette for the lease period in premises bearing of Municipality and Mandai to the petitioners respectively. respect of various mandals, municipalities and towns - total of 458 shops have been notified vide Gazette Notification and 12 shops have been notified in Municipality at SI.. shops have been notified municipality/mandai and rural areas wise. In respect of Mandai only 7 shops have been notified - Shop at SI of Mandai located at Cross could not be disposed of as nobody offered more than the notified upset price – Held Shop Rules go to show that relocation of the shop originally notified vide Gazette Notification issued by the second respondent and the consequential action of grant of licence in favour of the fourth respondent is illegal and unsustainable. The object of issuing the Gazette notification prescribing the number of shops, location, upset price etc. is to give an indication to the auction purchaser to offer highest bids after taking into account various relevant factors - Petitioners are entitled for refund of the average proportionate lease amount in respect of the period of lease granted to the fourth respondent. I am of the opinion that such a contention is beyond the scope of the writ petition. However, it is always open for the writ petitioners and the fourth respondent to work out their remedies in accordance with law. It is also open for the official respondents to take appropriate steps to relocate the shop of the fourth respondent from Mandai to the originally notified location Mandai so as to safeguard the Government revenue by permitting the fourth respondent to carry on his business at the originally notified location in Mandai or to re-dispose the said shop or by way of selling liquor at the originally notified outlet through APBCL - Writ petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for – Petition is Allowed
The matter has been finally heard at the interlocutory stage at the consent of all the parties and the writ petition itself is disposed of.
2. Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M.V. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
3. Petitioners are the successful tenderers and licencees in respect of shops at SI.Nos.57 and 58 of Gazette notification dated 27-05-2006 situated at Ward Nos.34 and 35 of Madanapalli Municipality and Mandai, notified by District Collector, Chittoor, who is the auctioning authority to auction the rights to sell Indian made Foreign Liquor/Indian Liquor by shops, under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shops and Conditions of Licences) Rules, 2005 (for short the Shop Rules) The first petitioner, who is the licencee in respect of Shop No.57 of Ward No.34 of Madanapalli Municipality and Mandai, offered highest bid of Rs.22,55,255/- and the second petitioner, who is the licencee in respect of Shop No.58 of Ward No.35 of Madanapalli Municipality and Mandai, also offered the same amount of highest bid. The petitioners being the auction purchasers were granted licences in Form A-4 to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor by Shop at Gazette SI.Nos.57 and 58 for the lease period from 01-07-2006 to 30-06-2008 in premises bearing D.No.III-146-14-5-Aand D.No.II-25061-1-A of Madanapalli Municipality and Mandai to the petitioners respectively.
4. It is stated that in respect of various mandals, municipalities and towns of Chittoor District a total of 458 shops have been notified vide Gazette Notification dated 27-05-2006 and 12 shops have been notified in Madanapalli Municipality at SI.Nos.56 to 67. The shops have been notified municipality/mandai and rural areas wise. In respect of Puthalapattu Mandai only 7 shops have been notified at SI.Nos.161 to 167. The Shop at SI.No.165 of Puthalapattu Mandai located at Rangampeta Cross (Shop - 2) could not be disposed of as nobody offered more than the notified upset price of Rs.13,99,998/-. Therefore, the said shop has been notified again by the auctioning authority, the District Collector, Chittoor District, vide Gazette notification dated 16-12-2006 for opening a shop at Neerugantivari Palli, Ward No.35 of Mandanapalli Municipality notifying the upset price at Rs.10,03,561/-. It is not in dispute that aforesaid shop was originally notified at SI. No.165 of Puthalapattu Mandai vide Gazette notification dated 27-05-2006 but as per the sanction of the first respondent the second respondent issued notification under Rule 5 of the Shop Rules vide Gazette notification dated 16-12-2006 and the fourth respondent became the auction purchaser in respect of the said shop by offering the highest bid of Rs.10,03,561/-; accordingly the licence bearing No.165/2006-08 in Form 4-A was granted in favour of the fourth respondent to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor by shop at SI. No.165 in respect of the relocated premises bearing D.No.II-250-67-B Neerugantivari Palli, Madanapalli Town, which is at Ward No.35.
Questioning the said action this writ petition is filed.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid shop in respect of which license has been granted in favour of the fourth respondent, is quite opposite to the shop of the first petitioner and existing in the same locality/ward of the second petitioner. The shop of the second petitioner is situated at D.No.II-250-61-I-A whereas the shop of the fourth respondent is situated as D.No.II-25067 -B of Madanapalli town and municipality. The shops of the second petitioner and the fourth respondent are at the same Ward No.35 and the shops of the first petitioner and the fourth respondent are situated quite opposite to one another on either side of the road. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the resp
