N SURYANARAYANA Vs. V GIRIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred by respondents 2 to 8 in Writ Petition No. 4729 of 1989 against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 25-8-1989 allowing the writ petition

(2.) The 1st respondent-writ petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent for a licence in Form "FL-17" to open a bar and restaurant in premises No. 46-17-20, Danavaipet, Rajahmundry, under the name and style of "Prince Bar and Restaurant". The 2nd respondent by order dated 28-3-1989 in Crime No. 39887/Ex/88/G3 rejected the application. The learned single Judge quashed the said order holding that Clause (iii) of Rule 29(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short "the Rules") is satisfied. However, he observed that the question whether the restriction contained in Clause (ii) of the said Rule is attracted, has not been considered by the 2nd respondent, and that in view of the disputed question of fact raised as to whether the proposed premises is in a commercial area, he directed the 2nd respondent to consider all the facts and circumstances and pass fresh orders in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the judgment after giving opportunity to the parties.

(3.) Sri N. Ramamohana Rao, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the impugned order of the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Excise) is legal and valid having regard to the provisions of clause (iii) of Rule 29(1) of the Rules and that the learned Judge erred in holding that the requirements of the Rule were satisfied. He further submits that the fact that pursuant to the order under appeal the 2nd respondent has granted licence to the 1st respondent, has no bearing on this appeal.