KANAKADURGA WINES Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who obtained IL-24 licence for sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor at Vemulavada village in premises bearing D.No.3-1-129 made an application on 3-2-2003 for shifting of his IL-24 shop from premises bearing D.No.3-1-129 of Vemulavada town to D.No.1-5-11 of the same town stating that there is no facility in the existing shop to avail permit room (IL-24- Belicence) and requested to shift to the proposed premises for obtaining IL-24-B licence. SDP & EO after due enquiry into the matter reported that the proposed premises is in conformity with Rule 6 of A.P. Excise (Indian and Foreign Liquor Retail Sale Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1993 (for short "the Rules"). Accordingly, the proposal was submitted to the second respondent, who is competent authority to accord permission for shifting of shop. The second respondent through his proceedings dt. Cr.No.4788/2003/CPE/G4 dt.4-4-2003 has accorded permission for shifting of IL-24- shop, in view of the petitioner willing to obtain IL-24-B (permit room) licence, as there is no provision at the present premises. As Licence granted for the year 2002-2003 has come to an end by 31st March, 2003, the petitioner made an application for renewal of licence before its expiry by complying with all necessary formalities. The same was renewed on petitioner furnishing bank guarantee' of 2/3rd of annual licence fee on 15-4-2003. After obtaining permission for shifting the licence, and when he is about to shift the same, the fifth respondent filed an objection petition before the Commissioner on 15-4-2003 stating that proposed premises selected by the petitioner is within the prohibited distance of 93.4 metres from Raja Rajeswari Temple as per Rule 6 of the rules. On forwarding the said objections to the third respondent to enquire personally and submit a report, he submitted his report. Basing upon the report of the third respondent and as per orders of the High Court in W.P. No.6592/2003 dt. 15-4-2003 directing the second respondent to consider the representation, the Commissioner by providing an opportunity to the fifth respondent as well as the petitioner on 6-5-2003 passed orders dated 7-5-2003 observing that the proposed premises is less than 50 metres distance from the existing shop of the fifth respondent and accordingly permission granted earlier on 4-4-2003 to shift the shop was withdrawn.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the distance which was in force under Rule 29(5) of A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 was omitted by Government through G.O.Ms.No.190, Revenue (Ex.lll), dt.24-3-1998. In view of the same, any circular issued by the second respondent is contrary to the intention of the Legislature and no distance restriction should be placed for granting IL-24 licence. He further contends that once report submitted by the third respondent clearly shows that the proposed premises is beyond 107-30 metres from the Raja Rajeswari Temple, withdrawing the permission on different ground is arbitrary and illegal and same is in violation of principles of Natural Justice. In the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner dt.2-4-2003 suspending the earlier circulars and imposing 50 metres distance restriction to be maintained uniformly from shop to shop, shop to a bar and bar to bar is without jurisdiction. In the absence of any rule prohibiting such grant of licence, Commissioner cannot impose a ban for granting IL 24-B licence.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Excise contends that under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of A.P. Excise Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") it is competent for the Commissioner to exercise all powers as he being the Chief Controlling Authority in all matters of concern with the administration of this Act. In view of the same, circular memo issued by the Commissioner is only to effectuate licences to be granted under the Act.