P VASANTHA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order dt. 1-4-2000 issued by the 3rd respondent in proceedings Rc.No. 65/2000/B2 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to renew the licence in favour of the 4th respondent viz., M/s. Sai Beer and Wines, represented by its Proprietor, Shaik Jageer s/o Shaik Hussain in the premises bearing No. 15-1-106, Island Centre, Ponnur, Guntur District and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the Shop No. 15-1-106 situated at Island Centre, Ponnur, Guntur District. Earlier her husband was carrying on the business in Bar & Restaurant in the said premises and he died in the year 1988. Subsequently the petitioner along with some others continued the said business and they stopped the business in the year 1994 in view of the prohibition imposed in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter the petitioner let out the shop to 5th respondent to run a cycle shop. But consequent upon lifting of the prohibition, the 5th respondent has started liquor business along with 4th respondent in the said premises without her consent or permission. Questioning the illegal action of the respondents 4 and 5 and also the action of the licensing authority in granting licence to them to run liquor business in the premises, the petitioner had filed W.P.No. 5475 of 1999 which was withdrawn as the licence was already granted. When the licensing authority was trying to renew the licence again, the petitioner made a representation on 3-1-2000 and also a reminder dt. 13-1-2000 to the licensing authority objecting to the renewal of the licence in favour of 4th respondent. As the petitioner received no response, she filed another W.P.No. 809 of 2000 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 24-3-2000 with the following direction.

(3.) In pursuance of the above directions the 3rd respondent considered and rejected the representations of the petitioner by proceedings dt. 1-4-2000 stating that such representations are cleared off, as they are not maintainable in terms of the rules and regulations. The said order was impugned in this writ petition on the ground that it is violative of principles of natural justice and the representations of the petitioner were not considered properly on par with Rule 29 (3) of A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short "the Rules") as directed by this Court in W.P. No. 809 of 2000. The impugned order was also attacked on the ground that there was no lease agreement between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Was there any lease deed produced by the 4th respondent, it was a forged document, and as per Rule 29 (3) of the Rules unless the applicant produces the lease deed on a stamp paper for the proposed licensed premises from the owner of the premises, licence in Forms IL 17, IL 19 and IL 24 cannot be granted or otherwise renewed. As there was no lease deed executed by the petitioner in favour of 4th respondent, the renewal of licence in favour of 4th respondent for the year 2000-2001 is contrary to the above said provisions and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.