KALPANA WINES Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the three writ petitions, the petitioners are questioning the validity of the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Excise, A. P., Hyderabad in Cr.No.469/81/EX/G3 dt. 6-1-1981. Thereunder the Commissioner has instructed all the Superintendents of Excise not to grant any further licences under the A.P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970. It would be sufficent if I state the facts in W.P.No, 195/1981. The Petitioner applied to the Supreintendent of Excise for grant of a licence in form F. L. 16 and 1-1-1981. According to the petitioner the concerned Sub-Inspector, Excise recommended his case on the same day and on 2-1-1981 the Circle Inspector also recommended. On 5-1-1981 the Excise Superintendent, Anantapur directed the applicant to pay a licence fee of Rs 13, 500/- and to apply with the necessary documents for neeessary action. The petitioner says that no objection certificate was issued by the Municipal Health Officer, Anantapur and also by the landlord of the premises in which he wanted to do the business. On 9-1-1981 the petitioner says, he deposited a sum of Rs. 13,500/- But it is complained, the Superintendent of Excise rejected his application on 12-1-1981 with reference to the aforementioned instructions of the Commissioner. The facts in W P. No. 196/81 are identical to the facts of the present case.

(2.) So far as W.P.No. 207/81 is concerned, the petitioner applied for F.L. 24 licence on 12-12-1980 and according to the petitioner the concerned officers made reports recommending his case and a no objection certificate was also issued by the Municipality. In fact, it is stated, that No objection certificate of the Municipality was filed along with the application for licence. But it is stated that the petitioner's application was rejected by the Excise Superintendent on 9-1-1981 with reference to the aforementioned instructions of the Commissioner of Excise.

(3.) The petitioners submit that the instructions of the Commissionsr being inconsistent with the statutory rules and the provisions of the Act, are ineffective and invalid and their contention is that the Excise Super- intendants must be directed to consider their applications strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions without reference to the instructions of the Commissioner aforementioned.