Y RAJITHA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF IANDHRA PRADEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 16.11.2012 as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter called the "Bar Rules"), and as contrary to G.O.R.T. No. 833 dated 11.06.2010. A consequential direction is sought to the respondents to set aside the said order; take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner dated 07.09.2008 in terms of G.O.Rt. No. 833 dated 11.06.2010, and with reference to Rule 5 of the Rules; and to grant 2B licence, notwithstanding G.O.Ms. No. 723 dated 02.08.2010, for establishing a Restaurant & Bar at Tirupati. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner submitted an application in Form-1A on 17.09.2008 in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 997 dated 24.05.2005; her application was examined and, in view of the closure of some of the bars and non-renewal of some of the bar licenses at Tirupati, respondents 3 to 5 favourably recommended her case observing that the petitioner had fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in Rule 6 of the Rules, and her applications could be considered in the place of the Restaurant & Bars which had been closed. While recommending that the petitioner be granted a bar license, respondents 3 and 4 observed that only one A4 shop was located at a distance of 300 metres, and there were no 2B Bar licences existing in the vicinity of the proposed premises at Tuda road in Tirupati. Relying on the report of the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 3rd respondent on 17.09.2009 recommending the petitioner's case for grant of prior clearance, for establishing a Bar-cum-Restaurant, for the year 2009-2010. Thereafter the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 15.10.2009, submitted a report to the 2nd respondent recommending grant of 2B licence to her in the place of the three bar licences which were either cancelled or not renewed for the year 2009-2010. The petitioner submitted a representation, thereafter, stating that she would produce the trade licence, before the second respondent, when prior clearance was granted.

(2.) The petitioner's application, for grant of a bar licence, was considered along with several others and the 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 13.09.2010, rejecting the applications holding that Chittoor Municipal Corporation was eligible to have seven bars whereas the existing number of bars were 18; and, as such, there was no scope for grant of any new bar licence thereat. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 26625 of 2010 which was allowed by order dated 23.12.2010, the impugned order dated 13.09.2010 was set aside, the matter remitted to the 2nd respondent for his consideration afresh, and for an appropriate speaking order to be passed in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby the respondents preferred W.A. No. 377 of 2011 which was disposed of by the Division bench by its order dated 11.04.2012.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the State has the exclusive privilege of manufacture and sale of liquor, and no citizen has a fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor; the applicant has no right to be granted a licence for the mere asking; the petitioner had applied for grant of prior clearance for establishing a Bar in Tirupati; her application dated 07.08.2008 was received on 17.09.2008; the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor had submitted a report stating that she neither had a trade licence nor was she running a restaurant; when her application was under consideration, the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 723 dated 02.08.2010 prescribing guidelines for grant of prior clearance for establishing bars as per which Tirupathi Municipal Corporation was eligible for seven bars only; and as there were 18 Bars in Tirupati, during the year 2010-11, the petitioner's application, along with 31 others, was rejected by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 13.08.20,10. After referring to the order passed in W.P. No. 26625 of 2010, and the order of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 377 of 2011, the respondents would submit that the 2nd respondent had again examined the case of the petitioner in detail; there was no scope for grant of prior clearance for establishing a new bar in Tirupati Municipal Corporation as there were more bars in existence than the maximum stipulated in G.O.Ms. No. 723 dated 02.08.2010; G.O.Ms. No. 723 dated 02.08.2010 was issued by the Government to dispose of an overwhelming number of pending applications for grant of new licences all over the State; G.O.Ms. No. 723 dated 02.08.2010, issued to supplement G.O.Rt. No. 883 dated 11.06.2010, is applicable to the petitioner's case; her application, received on 17.09.2008, was therefore considered in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 723 dated 02.08.2010; her contention that, because her application dates back to the year 2008-09, G.O.Ms. No. 723 dated 02.08.2010 is not applicable is not tenable; applications received, either for grant of prior clearance or for a bar licence, are required to be considered with reference to the law prevailing on the date of consideration; and it cannot be said that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 16.11.2012 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Bar Rules and to G.O.Rt. No. 833 dated 11.06.2010.