2014 Supreme(AP) 1255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.
G. Nagaiah – Appellant
Vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21073 of 2014
Decided On: 26.09.2014
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P. Kamlakar
For Respondents/Defendant: G.P.
Headnote:
A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012 - Rule 4 - Prohibition and Excise - Prohibition & Excise Superintendent - Petitioner sought for a Writ of Mandamus for declaring notification issued by Prohibition and Excise Superintendent insofar as relocating Shop bearing Gazette Serial Municipality at Mandal Excise Station, as illegal and arbitrary - Petitioner was granted a license for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor known as License in respect of Shop Mandal Municipal Corporation kms - Belt area limits for current year - It is further case of petitioner that only three shops were initially notified for Mandal and they are notified at Serial of Gazette requirement public order health safety and other factors - license fee is recorded addition of one more shop to area/locality should not be authorized – Held, What Rule of Shop Rules sets out is a privilege fee payable at together with Value Added Tax becomes chargeable once an Shop Licensee exceeds his annual turn-over of times license fee - That is a contingency liability to pay privilege fee would occasion only upon contingency of licensee exceeding sales turnover of times license fee but not otherwise - Further a contingency might develop during course of currency of license period but it might seldom arise at very inception time of license - Therefore in opinion Rule of Shop Rules does not offer any guidance for regulating exercise contained in the later part of Rule 4 of the Shop Rules, relating to relocation of undisputed shops – Further have not noticed that this Court has held and others Government of A.P. and others that only where sales turnover exceeds times license fee then only relocation of undisputed shop is permissible - Application dismissed (Para 8)
Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J.
1. The petitioner sought for a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the notification dated 11.07.2014 issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Anantapur, insofar as relocating the Shop bearing Gazette Serial No. 84, Rayadurg Municipality at B.K. Samudram Mandal, Singanamala Excise Station, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was granted a license for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor, known as A-4 License, in respect of Shop No. 124, B.K. Samudram Mandal, Anantapur Municipal Corporation, 5 kms. belt area limits for the current year 2014-15. It is the further case of the petitioner that only three shops were initially notified for B.K. Samudram Mandal and they are notified at Serial Nos. 124, 125 and 130 of the Gazette. The license fee fixed for Shop Nos. 124 and 125 is ` 45.00 lakhs per annum, for Shop No. 130 it was ` 32.50 lakhs per annum. By virtue of the license granted, the petitioner is operating a retail sale vend notified at Serial No. 124 in terms and in accordance with the conditions contained in the license. It is the contention of the petitioner that, as per Rule 4 of A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012, henceforth referred to as 'Shop Rules'; the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise having due regard to the requirement, public order, health, safety and other factors as he thinks fit, may fix the total number of shops to be established in an area/locality before the publication of notification under Rule 5 and may relocate any undisposed shops from any area/locality as he thinks fit. Since the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise has decided and fixed three number of shops to be established at B.K. Samudram and accordingly published the notification as per Rule 5 of the Shop Rules, no further addition to this number is authorized. It is the further case of the petitioner that, as per Sub-clause (9) of Rule 16 of Shop Rules, a privilege fee at 8% on the turn-over of sales will have to be paid, provided the turn-over of sales has exceeded 7 times the annual license fee. Therefore, as a policy, unless sales turn-over of more than 7 times the license fee is recorded, addition of one more shop to the area/locality should not be authorized. Whereas, the Excise Superintendent, Anantapur, through the impugned notification has proposed to relocate Shop at Serial No. 84 of the first Gazette notification which is originally intended to be established at Rayadurg Municipality, Municipal Election Ward No. 10 within the Municipal Limits of Anantapur, within the 5 kms belt area near at the Collectorate Anantapur now. Consequently, the total number of shops in B.K. Samudram Mandal increased to 4 from 3 and this is impermissible. Further, the sales statistics maintained by the A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited, IML Depot, Anantapur, clearly bring out that the sales turn-over of the retailers in B.K. Samudram Mandal for the previous Excise Year 2013-2014 has not crossed 7 times the annual license fee. Therefore, relocation of Rayadurgam Shop to B.K. Samudram Mandal is grossly illegal. It is also contended that there are several other areas and localities in Anantapur District where the annual sales/turn-over have exceeded 7 times the license fee and therefore it is in such areas, the relocation of Rayadurgam Shop should have been ordered.
2. The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Anantapur filed a detailed counter affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit, it is contended that what Rule 16(9) of the Shop Rules contemplates is levy of privilege fee together with Value Added Tax thereon, whenever the annual sales turn-over of any licensee exceeds 7 times. Such a stipulation is not a guiding factor for purposes of ordering relocation of undisposed shops. It is further contended that, the shop which is originally notified for Rayadurgam Municipality remained undisposed even during the second round o