PARMI NARAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th respondent (impleaded respondent).

(2.) Case of the petitioners is that, 1st petitioner was granted Form 2B licence under the provisions of the A.P. Excise [Grant of licence of selling by bar and conditions of license] Rules, 2017 (for short 'the Rules, 2017 ') to run a bar in the premises bearing D.No.5-6-59/41, Sowmya complex, Vijayawada and the petitioners were running the bar and restaurant in the name and style of 'M/s Vineela Sai Restaurant and Bar '; they made an application to the respondents for shifting of the bar license from the present premises to premises bearing D.No.48-16-39/6, Kamineni Nagar, Ballemvari Street, Vijayawada; the said application was considered by the respondents and a shifting order was issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise by exercising the power under rule 17(3) of the Rules, 2017; petitioners were also permitted to change the name of the bar to M/s Lucky 's restaurant and bar and the same was communicated to the petitioners by the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 21.10.2020 and the licence was also extended from 19.09.2020 to 30.06.2021; after issuance of the shifting orders, petitioners started conducting business in the new premises; while so, a complaint dated 27.10.2020 was filed by one S.Venkateshwara Rao, the licensee of M/s Royal Touch Restaurant and Bar and basing on the said complaint, a report was called for by the 4th respondent from the Prohibition & Excise Inspector; basing on the report from the Excise Inspector, impugned order was passed directing the petitioners to submit explanation within a period of three days with regard to the discrepancies in the door number and were also instructed not to transact business until further orders. Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed.

(3.) I.A.No.2 of 2020 is filed to permit the petitioner to implead him as 5th respondent in the main writ petition. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the implead petitioner submits that the proposed petitioner is not only a complainant but also running bar and restaurant in the premises at Kamineni Nagar, Vijayawada, where the writ petitions have also commenced the bar and restaurant. The said petition is ordered today permitting the proposed petitioner to come on record as 5th respondent in the main writ petition.