GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J:- This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th December, 2007 in Writ Petition No.23212 of 2007, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition.

2. Brief facts are that the appellant is a licensee for running a retail liquor vend at Saripalli Village in Visakhapatnam District and he was granted necessary licence in Form AA on 1.7.2006. However, as Saripalli is a sparsely populated village, the appellant sought for shifting of the said retail liquor vend from the said village to Jarripothulapalem Village and the same was considered by the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise (the first respondent herein) and accordingly he was permitted to shift the retail liquor vend to Jarripothupalem Village by order dated 23.8.2006. The third respondent, who was an existing licensee of a retail liquor vend at Narva Village, approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 22493 of 2006 questioning the said shifting, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.11.2006. Thereafter, he filed another petition being Writ Petition No.23576 of 2006 questioning the validity of Rule 29(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules'). It appears, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise reconsidered the entire issue and passed an order on 28.11.2006 cancelling the shifting of the appellant's retail liquor vend for Saripalli V illage to Jarripothulapalem Village. Questioning the said order dated 28.11.2006, the appellant approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No.25429 of 2006. A learned Single Judge of this Court clubbed both the matters i.e. Writ Petition No.23576 of 2006 filed by the third respondent and Writ Petition No.25429 of 2006 filed by the appellant, and disposed them of by a common order dated 1.10.2007 with a direction to the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise to provide necessary hearing to both the parties on 12.10.2007 in the afternoon. The learned Single Judge further directed the appellant as well as the third respondent to be present thel11Selves before the Commissioner and put forth their respective pleas and thereafter, the Commissioner shall decide the issue on merits by passing a speaking order within a period of fifteen days thereafter.

3. Pursuant to the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Commissioner passed an order on 26.10.2007 upholding the cancellation of the shifting order passed by him on 28.11.2006. Questioning the said order, the appellant approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No.23212 of 2007 and as stated supra, the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence this writ appeal.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the third respondent.

5. One of the contentions, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that despite the fact that this Court, while disposing of the writ petitions by order dated 1.10.2007, specifically directed the Commissioner to pass a speaking order, the Commissioner did not adhere to the said direction and passed an order without assigning any reason. In this context, the learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the orders impugned in the writ petition as well as this writ appeal. The second contention, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that as per the proviso to Rule 29(3) of the Rules, only for valid reasons, any shifting can be effected, but in the instant case, the authority i.e., the Commissioner, without assigning any reason, has simply cancelled the said shifting.

6. Learned Government Pleader as well as the Counsel for the third respondent have drawn our attention to the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document