Back
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
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Licensing and Natural Justice
Act Referred
Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019
Constitution of India: Art.14, Art.19, Art.300A
Headnote
(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.
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Counsel for the petitioner
For the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise
| 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
