ROSHINL WINES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby, and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The sole question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether an employee of the State can engage in the trade of liquor?

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that one Late Gompa Narsinga Rao was issued IL-24 licence under the A.P. Excise Act to run a liquor shop at Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam District in the name and style of M/s. Roshini Witves. He died on 13-1-2000. The appellant is the mother of Narsinga Rao. On her request, the authorities permitted her to continue the business in her name. The 4th respondent herein who is the wife of late Narsinga Rao allegedly gave consent thereto. She, however, subsequently, filed an objection petition on 12-6-2000 to the effect that her claim is superior. She also questioned the validity of the legal heir certificate granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi in Lr.D.Dis.72/2000, whereupon, the aforementioned certificate declaring the appellant and the 4th respondent as legal heirs of late Narsinga Rao was cancelled. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant herein was rejected and the 4th respondent was permitted to continue the business. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed in this Court by the appellant herein which was marked as W.P.No.18318 of 2000 wherein this Court directed her to file a statutory appeal before the 1st respondent Such statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was disposed on 3-10-2000 ordering to maintain status quo as on the date and thereagainst the present writ petition has been filed by the appellant. After filing of the writ petition, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the 4th respondent herein was appointed as a Teacher in the local Municipal Elementary School. An additional affidavit as per the directions of this Court was filed before the 1st respondent to decide whether the order dated 3-10-2000 requires any modification in view of the subsequent developments.