SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 425

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J.
Kolan Nithish Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana –Respondent
Writ Petition No.14555 of 2023
Decided on : 29-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel rep. Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy
For the Respondent: Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel rep. Sri V.Ram Mohan Reddy

IMPORTANT POINT
The consent of the owner of the premises is necessary for carrying on liquor business, and in the absence of such consent, the authority is not entitled to grant a license to the tenant.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Lease Dispute - Telangana Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012 - Rule 28

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a licensee of a liquor retail A4 shop, sought relief against an order directing them to vacate the premises due to a lease dispute between the owner and the petitioner's partner. The respondent No.2 passed the impugned order based on the petitioner's failure to submit valid documents at the time of obtaining the license and misleading the department.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, as a tenant, had no right to carry on any business of their choice in the premises belonging to another. The court upheld the impugned order, stating that the consent of the owner of the premises is necessary for carrying on liquor business, and in the absence of such consent, the authority is not entitled to grant a license to the tenant.

Issues: The main issue revolved around the validity of the impugned order directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and the requirement of the owner's consent for carrying on liquor business.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, as a tenant, had no right to carry on any business of their choice in the premises belonging to another, and the consent of the owner of the premises is necessary for carrying on liquor business.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned order and stating that the petitioner, as a tenant, was not entitled to run the A-4 shop in the subject premises without the owner's consent.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

    “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing proceedings in Cr.No.3008/2022/CPE/TS/F1, dt.29.05.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent directing the Petitioner to vacate the premises bearing No.8-2-293/82/C/64, Plot No.64, situated at Yousufguda, Hyderabad within a period of 15 days, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of article 14, 15 and 300 A of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.…”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the premises bearing No.8-2- 293/82/C/64, Ground Floor, situated at Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, belongs to the Respondent No.5. The Respondent Nos.5 and 6 acquainted with each other and in the year 2018, the Respondent No.5 offered to lease the said property in favour of Respondent No.6 on a monthly rent of Rs.40,000/- and accordingly, respondent No.6 paid a sum of Rs.40 lakhs towards advance to the Respondent No.5 on 03.09.2019 and spent huge amount for renovation and development of the said premises. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.6 was granted licence to run liquor retail A4 shop for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 and started doing liquor business in the said premises under the name and style "Hi-Spirits". It is further case of the petitioner that on 09.11.2021, respondent No.2 issued Gazette notification for drawal of lots for Grant of license to liquor retail A4 shops under Rule 5 of Telangana Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012 (for short “Excise Rules, 2012”) for the period from 01.12.2021 to 30.11.2023. The petitioner succeeded in the said notification and he was granted license vide No.HYD027/2021-23, dt.17.01.2022 to run liquor retail A4 shop. It is further case of the petitioner that as there was already existing liquor retail A4 shop in subject premises, the petitioner obtained the same from respondent No.6 and started running liquor retail A4 shop under the name and style “M/s.Hyderabad Wine Mart”. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.6 is also a partner in the liquor retail A4 shop being run by him. However, due to internal disputes between the Respondent Nos.5 and 6, the Respondent No.5 made a representation dt.05.02.2022 on the file of Respondent No.2 requesting to take appropriate action for unauthorized running of wine shop at the subject premises. It is further case of the petitioner that without following due process of law, respondent No.5 is trying to evict the petitioner through respondent No.2. It is further case of the petitioner that as the Respondent No.5 was creating hurdles and threatening to dispossess the petitioner by force, the Respondent No.6 filed a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.197/2022 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the Respondent No.5 seeking perpetual injunction and the said Court granted status quo order in I.A.No.543/2022. The respondent No.5, questioning the action of the excise authorities in not disposing of his representation, filed a Writ Petition No.43716 of 2022 on the file of this Court. In the said Writ Petition, this Court granted interim order directing the respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation submitted by the respondent No.5 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Pursuant to the said interim direction, the respondent No.2 has passed impugned order dated 29.05.2023 directing the petitioner herein to shift/relocate the liquor A4 shop i.e, M/s. Hyderabad Wine Mart in G.SI.No.HYD02 within 15 days from the existing premises in public interest, in terms of Rule 28 of the Excise Rule

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top