LAWS(APH)-2003-7-60

SRINIVASA WINES Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On July 18, 2003
SRINIVASA WINES, LINGASAMUDRAM, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF A, P., REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in fixing a new IL-24 shop for Lingasamudram Mandal of Prakasham District, with a slab licence fee of Rs. 3,00,000.00, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the excise policy declared by the Government.

(2.) According to the petitioner, there are three shops in Lingasamudram Mandal, one in the name of the petitioner, M/s. Sreenivasa Wines, and the other two in the names of M/s. Vigneshwara Wines and M/s. Kokila Wines. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the policy decision taken by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 389, dated 13-3-2003, only the licences of the existing licensees are to be renewed subject to their fulfilling the formalities and other conditions, and in case the existing licensees do not come forward to renew their licences, the Commissioner was at liberty to allot the unrenewed licences to those interested by following the procedure prescribed therefor. .

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that though all the existing licensees got their licences renewed for the excise year 2003-04, the Commissioner fixed an additional shop for Lingasamudram Mandal. The fixation of additional shop by the Commissioner, according to the petitioner, is not in harmony with the excise policy issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 109, Revenue (Ex. II) Department, dt. 11-3-2002, and runs contrary thereto. According to the petitioner, if the newly created shop is allotted or granted in favour of any third parties, it will not only affect his business, but will also affect the business of other existing licensees, adversely. The petitioner, therefore, prays this Court to declare the fixation of additional shop by the Commissioner, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to set aside the same.