THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.579 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.7682 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Sreenivas Shivaraj, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Deepak Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Barla Mallesh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that an excise license was granted to the appellant on 05.12.2023 to operate a retail liquor shop at Sarangapur village and Mandal. However, as the business at the licensed premises was not performing well, the appellant submitted an application to respondent No. 2 seeking permission to shift the retail shop from Sarangapur village to Laxmidevipally village, both of which fall within the same Mandal. Vide proceedings, dated 20.02.2024, respondent No.2 was pleased to permit the appellant to shift the shop from its original location at Sarangapur to the newly proposed premises at Laxmidevipally village in Sarangapur Mandal.

4. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that respondent No.6, who was also granted a license to run a retail liquor shop, had filed an appeal before the State Government challenging the proceedings, dated 20.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2-the Commissioner. The State Government vide proceedings, dated 16.03.2024 was pleased to set aside the order of respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.03.2024, the appellant had filed W.P.No.8126 of 2024 before this Court and the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 22.04.2024, was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition by remanding the matter to the State Government with a direction to conduct enquiry and pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity to the appellant. However, the State Government, without considering the objections submitted by the appellant had passed an order vide memo, dated 15.02.2025, holding that respondent No.2 had permitted the shifting of the appellant’s premises, without any valid grounds. Aggrieved by the said order of the State Government, the appellant once again approached this Court by filing subject W.P.No.7682 of 2025 and the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 04.06.2025 was pleased to dismiss the said Writ Petition, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had further contended that the State Government had set aside the order of the Commissioner only on the ground that the Commissioner had not assigned any reasons for permitting the appellant from shifting his licensed retail outlet from Sarangapur village to Laxmidevipalli village. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that if the State Government was of the view that the Commissioner has not assigned ay reasons, it ought to have remitted the matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration, instead of simply setting aside the order. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the right to be considered is a fundamental right, and in the present case, the Commissioner had, in fact, considered the request of the appellant for shifting the licensed outlet within the same Mandal. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has contended that under proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the Telangana Excise (Grant of License of Selling by shop and conditions of license) Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘the Rules’) the Commissioner is empowered to consider and permit, for valid reasons, the shifting of licensed premises within the same Mandal, notwithstanding the notified area. Admittedly, in the instant case, two shops were notified in Sarangapur Mandal, one in Sarangapur village, run by the appellant and another in P