Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 303
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.
B. Venkateswarlu & Others
Versus
Government of A.P. Revenue (Excise) Department, rep., by its Prl. Secretary to Govt. Secretariat & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 35116 of 2013, 35260, 35286, 35294, 35298, 35299, 35303, 35304, 35405, 35475, 35488, 35496, 35500, 35535, 35548, 35610, 35648, 35745 & 35750 of 2013
Decided On: 05-03-2014
For the Petitioners:K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, N. Subba Rao, S. Lakshma Reddy, S. Rahul Reddy, I. Chandrasekhar, P. Nagendra Reddy, P.V. Ramana, C. Damodar Reddy, B. Vijaysen Reddy, Advocates. Rajasekhar Rao, Learned Counsel.
For the Respondents: Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.
A claim based on mere legitimate expectation, without anything more, cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke principle of Legitimate Expectation.
Headnote:(A) A.P. Excise (Grant of licence of selling by shops and conditions of licence) Rules, 2012-Rule 4-Relocation of shop- fixation of the number of shops, their location, and grouping are considered by the legislative delegate to be matters of such vital importance in Excise administration that the power in this regard is vested in the Excise Commissioner-As power of Commissioner to relocate an undisposed shop, from an area/locality to another, is not fettered by village/municipal/municipal corporation/Mandal/district level restrictions, it is open to him, for just and valid reasons, to relocate undisposed shops from an area/locality in a district/zone/multi-zone to another area/locality in a different district/zone/multi-zone.
(B) Constitution of India-Article 14-Article 14 forbids class legislation, and not a reasonable classification. What is forbidden is discrimination. Persons similarly situated must be similarly treated. Where, however, persons are not similarly situated, there is no prohibition to treat them separately, provided of course there is a reasonable nexus between the basis of classification and the object to be achieved.
(C) Legitimate Expectation-Court can interfere only if decision taken by authority is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in gross abuse of power or in violation of principles of natural justice and is not taken in public interest. A claim based on mere legitimate expectation, without anything more, cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles---Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law---Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process---Whether expectation of claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case.
Result-Writ Petition dismissed.
The notifications issued by District Collectors, inviting applications for grant of licences for the relocated A-4 excise shops, is questioned in these Writ Petitions as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the A.P. Excise (Grant of licence of selling by shops and conditions of licence) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter called the “2012 Rules”).
It would suffice, for the disposal of this batch of Writ Petitions, if the facts in W.P. No.35116 of 2013 are noted. The petitioners were allotted A-4 shops at Konijerla and other villages for the licence period 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013. They paid the licence fee of Rs.32.5 lakhs per annum. The licence was renewed, on completion of one year, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules. In the notification dated 30.11.2013, published in the District Gazette, the District Collector stated that the licence for the right of selling by shop was to be granted for the licence period from 01.07.2013 to 30.06.2014; the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise had fixed 153 A-4 shops to be licensed in the areas/localities by proceedings dated 12.07.2012; among the 153 notified shops, 147 shops, which were disposed and established for the year 2012-13, were being renewed for the year 2013-14; in addition thereto, two new shops were allotted by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise by proceedings dated 29.11.2013; consequently he was issuing a notification for the A-4 shops which were either not disposed or had been cancelled or withdrawn for the year 2012-13; and, consequently, seven A-4 shops were being relocated under Rule 4 for drawal of lots.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the said notification of the District Collector, informing the public and intending applicants, that A-4 shops were being relocated from one area to another either within or beyond the District. It is the petitioner’s case that a similar attempt to relocate shops, by issuance of a notification, was under challenge in W.P. No.21377 of 2013 and batch; during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the said notifications were withdrawn by the Government; and, consequently, the Writ Petitions were disposed of by order dated 21.08.2013.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise it is stated, among others, that the Commissioner had granted permission to relocate only 314 of the 1311 undisposed shops after considering all relevant factors; accordingly notifications dated 15.07.2013 were issued inviting applications for 300 shops at the proposed places; 810 applications were received for 127 A-4 shops; W.P. No.21474 of 2013 and batch was filed challenging the notification dated 15.07.2013; this Court had, by order dated 22.07.2013, permitted the authorities to proceed with the process of receipt of applications and drawal of lots, but had directed that no licenses shall be issued for any of the relocated shops; when the matter was being heard, the respondents withdrew the notifications with liberty to issue notifications afresh for relocation of the A-4 shops at all places where the turnover of the existing shops exceeded seven times the licence fee; as the cause in the Writ Petition did not survive, necessitating adjudication by this Court, the Writ Petitions were closed by order dated 21.08.2013; 60 A-4 shops, notified at their original places in the third round of notification, were confirmed; notifications dated 03.11.2013 were issued by the District Collectors inviting applications for establishing A-4 shops at the notified places; 547 applications were received pursuant to these notifications; among the 547 applications, 14 were received for the 12 A-4 shops notified in their original locations; as against the 121 A-4 shops sought to be relocated, 533 applications were received for 72 A-4 shops; lots were drawn on 07.12.2013 by the District Collectors, and successful applicants were declared; the Prohibition and Excise Superintendents had issued provisional licences to the successful a
