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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15018

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V. Venugopal, J
Nukala Vidyasagar Reddy Wines – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.839 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Counsel for the petitioner
For the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise

The arbitrary cancellation or modification of a license, such as directing a business to shift premises, without adhering to the principles of natural justice—specifically the failure to issue show-cause notices or provide an opportunity for the affected party to be heard—is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Excise Act, 1968 - Sections 31, 32, 34 and 36 - Grant of retail liquor license - Cancellation of license/shifting of premises without notice or opportunity to be heard - Procedural impropriety - The court observed that the license was granted after due inspection of the premises by the authorities - The unilateral cancellation or direction to shift premises based on a municipal report without issuing a prior show cause notice or affording an opportunity to the licensee to explain their position is arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice. (Para 5)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Exercise of power - When authorities act in violation of natural justice by closing premises without notice, such administrative actions are unsustainable - The court mandated the de-sealing of the premises and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's application for shifting premises in accordance with law. (Paras 6, 7.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was granted a license to operate a liquor retail outlet after participating in an auction. Despite paying the requisite excise fees, the authorities issued a notice directing the shifting of the shop premises based on a report from a municipal commissioner alleging the premises were on government-controlled land. The premises were sealed prior to the issuance of the impugned proceedings. The petitioner challenged the shifting direction, citing a lack of notice and procedural unfairness.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the impugned proceedings were passed without following due process as the petitioner was provided no opportunity to be heard or to defend their tenancy before the action was taken.

Issues: Whether the direction to shift the licensed premises without prior notice or opportunity of hearing is legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative actions affecting the legal rights and livelihoods of a licensee must comply with the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of providing notice and an opportunity to respond before cancelling or modifying a granted license.

Result: Allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges illegal proceedings regarding liquor shop premises. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. allegations of procedural violation and lack of notice. (Para 4)
3. administrative mandate to follow fairness in licensing decisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“...to issue Writ order or direction more particularly

one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

action of the respondents more particularly 4th

respondents in issuing proceedings No.1753/2025/B,

dated 23.12.2025 directing the petitioner to shift the

existing licensed A4 and A4 B liquor shop to new

premises is being arbitrary, illegal, perverse,

discrimination contrary to Section 31 , 32, 34 and 36 of

the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 Rules therein and the

Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 besides being

violation of Article 14, 19 and 300A of the

Constitution of India and Consequently direct the

respondents not to interfere with the business

operations of the petitioners A4 and A4B liquor shop

at the licensed premises and permit the petitioner to

carry on its business strictly in terms of the existing

valid Licence No.NLG 128/202527/B, dated

28.11.2025 by setting aside the proceedings

No.1753/2025/B, dated 23.12.2025 issued by the 4th

respondent and pass”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has been granted licence for running an A4 and A4(B) retail liquor outlet vide Gazette Notification No.58, dated 26.09.2025, mentioned at Serial No. NLG128, Nandikonda Municipality. He further submitted that the said selection was made pursuant to an auction conducted by respondent No.3.

3.1. He further submitted that the petitioner has paid the requisite excise duty for the purpose of running the A4 liquor shop. He also submitted that the petitioner’s application was thoroughly examined and upon being found satisfactory, and with no objection from the rightful owner, a license was granted to the petitioner vide License No.NLG.128/2025-27/B, dated 28.11.2025.

3.2. The petitioner stated that he had deposited an amount of Rs.9,16,667/- on 28.10.2025 and an equal amount in subsequent renewals of the said license as installments for every quarter, and that he has not defaulted in the payment of license fees to the official respondents.

3.3. He would submit that, surprisingly, the petitioner has not been supplied with liquor to run the shop as specified under the terms of the license granted to him, despite the fact that the petitioner has made the requisite payment for the purpose of obtaining liquor from the Telangana Beverage Corporation.

3.4. He would submit that, surprisingly, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 08.12.2025 vide C.R.No.1752/2025/B. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed a detailed explanation on 16.12.2025. Irrespective of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, and relying upon the report of the Commissioner, Nandikonda Municipality, it was stated that the premises belonging to the landlord, Mr. Erigi Srinath, do not pertain to him but are Government property held by the Nagarjuna Sagar Project. The said property is not permissible for private occupation, and the wine shop is situated adjacent to a church, thereby causing inconvenience and raising concerns of public sensitivity.

3.5. Based on the recommendation made by the Commissioner of Nandikonda Municipality, the permission granted to the petitioner was cancelled. Under those circumstances, the petitioner was advised to shift the existing licensed premises to a new location within one week from the date of receipt of the said proceedings.

3.6. He would submit that reasonable time has not been granted to the petitioner in the first place, and secondly, no observations have been made in the said order regardin

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