The authority granting permission for shifting a licensed premises must provide valid reasons, and failure to do so allows for revisionary intervention by a higher authority.

ORDER :

G. RADHA RANI, J.

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any order or direction writ or writs more particularly on in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring that the action of the 1^st respondent in issuing the Memo No. 6390/Excise – II(i)/2024 dated 15.02.2025 by setting aside the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 20.02.2024 and directing the 5^th respondent to implement the orders of the 1^st respondent, is arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, set aside the same and further direct the 5^th respondent to remove the lock on the on the shop of the petitioner bearing Premises No.4-100/78, Lakshmidevipally Village, Sarangapur Mandal, Jagtial District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri D.Y.N.L.N.Charyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and Sri B.Mallesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it has been granted A4 licence, vide Licence No.JTL043/2023-25 dt.05.12.2023, to run a retail liquor shop at Sarangapur Village, for a period of two years; that since, the place at which it has been granted licence to run a retail liquor shop was not doing good business, it had approached the 4^th respondent authority and made an application under Rule 28(3) of the Telangana Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘the Rules’), for shifting of the shop from Sarangapur Village to Laxmidevipally Village, since both the villages fall within the same mandal.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the petitioner approaching the 4^th respondent and submitting the above-mentioned application, the said application was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent, who, in turn, by his proceedings No.2403/2023/CPE/TS/F4 dt.20.02.2024 permitted the petitioner to shift the shop from the premises bearing No.4-9, Sarangapur Village and Mandal to newly proposed premises No.4-100/78 of Laxmidevipally Village of Sarangapur Mandal on certain terms and conditions; that on the 2^nd respondent issuing the aforesaid proceeding, the petitioner had complied with the conditions specified under the Rules by paying 2% of tax in an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-; and that thereafter, shifted the shop to the newly permitted premises at Laxmidevipally Village and doing business since, 2024.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the unofficial respondent herein, who was granted licnece to run a retail liquor shop, vide Licence No.JTL/044/2023-25 dt.05.12.2023, had filed an appeal against the proceedings dt.20.02.2024 of the 2^nd respondent before the 1^st respondent who by Memo No.6930/Ex.II(1)/2024-1 dt.16.03.2024 had set aside the order of the 2^nd respondent dt.20.02.2024; that the petitioner has assailed the order of the 1^st respondent dt.16.03.2024, by filing a Writ Petition before this Court, vide W.P.No.8126 of 2024 and this Court by its order dt.27.03.2024 was pleased to suspend the order of the 1^st respondent; and that thereafter, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dt.22.04.2024 by setting aside the order of the 1^st respondent dt.16.03.2024 and remanding the matter dt.22.04.2024 back to the 1^st respondent directing the 1^st respondent to conduct enquiry and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that on this Court setting aside the order dt.16.03.2024 and remanding the matter back to the 1^st respondent, it had filed objections dt.11.11.2024 requesting the authorities to consider and pass appropriate o