Back
2018 Supreme(AP) 102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
A. Muthyala & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) Dept. & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 41313, 44518, 44522, 44742, 44860, 44889, 44951 & 45107 of 2017 & 2846 of 2018
Decided On : 20-02-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri O. Manohar Reddy, M/s K. Chidambaram, Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, M/s V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Sri B. Bala Muralikrishna
For the Respondents: Govt. Pleader for Proh & Excise
Headnote:
Constitution of India, Art. 226 – Licensees of the respective wine shops in different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh Impugning the proceedings of Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise for relocation of Shops – Challenged – Held, Decision of the Commissioner is after application of mind to the facts within the excise policy and covered by the Rules and in exercise of the powers conferred on him also after considering the reports of the subordinate officers as to the viability for the undisposed shops to be allotted in support of such relocation, which is within the allocation covered by Rule 5, in achieving the twin objects by such relocation of shops (i) to generate more revenue for the State and (ii) to ensure that, even after relocation, both the existing and the relocated A-4 shops achieve, on an average, a turnover of seven times the annual licence fee – Petitioners remedy including for the so called shifting is to approach the revision authority under Section 64 of the Act supra for the Government to entertain without reference to period of limitation – Petition disposed of (Para 23, 24)
Facts of the Case:
Licensees of the respective wine shops in different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh Impugning the proceedings of Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise for relocation of Shops – Challenged.
Finding of Court:
Decision of the Commissioner is after application of mind to the facts within the excise policy and covered by the Rules and in exercise of the powers conferred on him also after considering the reports of the subordinate officers as to the viability for the undisposed shops to be allotted in support of such relocation, which is within the allocation covered by Rule 5, in achieving the twin objects by such relocation of shops (i) to generate more revenue for the State and (ii) to ensure that, even after relocation, both the existing and the relocated A-4 shops achieve, on an average, a turnover of seven times the annual licence fee – Petitioners remedy including for the so called shifting is to approach the revision authority under Section 64 of the Act supra for the Government to entertain without reference to period of limitation.
Result : Disposed of
All the petitioners in the 9 writ petitions respectively are the licensees of the respective wine shops in different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Impugning the proceedings of Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise (for short, (P&E)) and consequential direction to the respective Superintendents (P&E) of concerned Districts in issuing the notification/s in respective Gazettes, the petitioners filed these Writ Petitions.
2(a). So far as W.P.No.41313 of 2017 concerned, the same is filed by one Sri A. Muthyala of M/s. Sri Muthyala Wines, D.No.7-2/2, M. Jagannadhapuram village, Tadipalligudam Rural Mandal, West Godavari District, and the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Excise-II) Dept., rep. by its Principal Secretary, the Commissioner(P&E), Vijayawada, the Deputy Commissioner(P&E), Eluru, the Superintendent (P&E), Eluru and the unofficial R.5 Ganamani Raju Babu of M/s. Venkat Wines. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the objections of petitioner dt.30.11.2017 filed against the application of 5th respondent for shifting of the shop from Kommugudem village to Arulla Village as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent-Commissioner to consider the objections before taking any decision and pass such other or further orders. The material averments in support of it are that in Tadepalligudem Mandal, there are 10 shops notified and 2 shops are within municipal limits of 2 kms periphery and if the proposed shop is to be relocated at Komugudem Village of Tadepalligudem Mandal it cause injustice to the petitioner and he objected thereby but unheeded. The criteria required to be taken to relocate an undisposed shop was not followed. This is undisputedly an undisposed shop for relocation ordered by the Commissioner.
2(b). So far as W.P.No.44518 of 2017 concerned, the same is filed by 4 petitioners viz; Sri B. Srirami Reddy of M/s. Satish Wines, D.No.13/338-1, A. Krishna Reddy of M/s Subba Reddy Wines, D.No.13- 338-F, D.V. Konda Reddy of M/s Konda Reddy Wines, D.No.13-184-J, of Pulivendula Road and A. Gangi Reddy of M/s Vijaya wines, D.No.9/87, Gandhi Road, all of Vempally, YSR Kadapa District, and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Excise-II) Dept., rep. by its Principal Secretary, the Commissioner (P&E), Vijayawada, the Deputy Commissioner (P&E), YSR Kadapa and the Superintendent (P&E), YSR Kadapa. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, issued in CR.No.4042/2017/CPE/ E2, dt.22.12.2017, with consequential direction to the 4th respondent-Superintendent (P&E) to issue notification inviting applications and selecting the applicant as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the AP Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2012 (for short Rules, 2012) and pass such other or further orders. The material averments in support of it are that in Vempally Mandal, there are 4 shops notified and the petitioners are the licencees conducting business and if the proposed one more shop is to be relocated in the Mandal it cause injustice to the petitioner and they objected thereby but unheeded. The criteria required to be taken to relocate an undisposed shop was not followed. This is undisputedly an undisposed shop for relocation ordered by the Commissioner.
2(c). So far as W.P.No.44522 of 2017 concerned, the same is filed by B.Venkata Swamy of M/s.Sree Lakshmi Wines, D.No.4-390-A, Kambadur village and Mandal, Anantapur District and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Excise) Dept., rep. by its Principal Secretary, the Commissioner(P&E), Vjayawada, the Deputy Commissioner(P&E),Anantapuram and Superintendent(P&E), Penukonda,
