Y. RAJAIAH NAIDU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are instituted by the very same petitioners. Respondents are also common in both the cases. W.P.No.19468 of 2014 is instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in permitting the fifth respondent to shift his shop notified in the Gazette at Serial No. 371 from Nelavai Village to Neerupakakota Village as illegal, malafide and violative of the scope and power vested under Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012, and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to permit the fifth respondent to shift and operate his shop at Neerupakakota Village, B.N. Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor District whereas W.P.No.24530 of 2014 seeks a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 18.08.2014 of the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh as illegal, unjust and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Tirupati issued notification dated 23.06.2014 in the District Gazette inviting the applications for consideration and grant of licenses for retail sale of liquor for a period of one year commencing on 01.07.2014. In accordance therewith the first petitioner herein applied for Shop No.1, Buchinaidu Kandriga, while the second petitioner applied for Shop No.2 of Buchinaidu Kandriga. Accordingly, both the petitioners were selected for grant of license for sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor in retail. It is the case of the petitioners that the fifth respondent applied for and was selected and granted license for the shop notified at serial no.372 of the district gazette to be located at Nelavai Village. Though Nelvai Village also falls within B.N. Kandriga Mandal, the same is at a distance of more than 9 kms wherefrom the petitioners have established their retail liquor vends. The writ petitioners came to learn that the fifth respondent has applied for shift of his licensed premises from Nelvai Village to Neerupakakota Village, with a malafide intention to cause business loss to the petitioners herein. The application of the fifth respondent has been taken up for consideration behind the back of the petitioners without any notice or communication to them. At that stage, the petitioners have instituted W.P.No.19468 of 2014. However, since the necessary permission has been accorded to the fifth respondent by the second respondent Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 18.08.2014, the second writ petition W.P.No.24530 of 2014 has come to be instituted challenging the validity of the said order.

(3.) HEARD Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the fifth respondent. It is contended by Sri S.V. Muni Reddy that only for valid reasons, a shift in the licensed premises can be permitted by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise whereas the Commissioner has not assigned any reasons whatsoever in his order dated 18.08.2014 permitting the shift from Nelavai Village to D.No.2 -64 Neerupakakota Panchayat of B.N. Kandriga Mandal. For sheer absence of reasons, the order dated 18.08.2014, the petitioners contend, deserves to be set -aside. Further, the petitioners have not been put on notice and specific opportunity was not provided to them and without considering the likely impact upon the business of the petitioners, the impugned order has been passed. It is also contended that, by permitting shift of the licensed premises of the fifth respondent, it is the petitioners business interests which will get adversely effected and hence the action of the respondents is contrary and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that, when the notification in the district gazette appeared on 23.06.2014, each mandal -wise, a number of shops to be located at the specified area/locality have been notified. The petitioners have picked up the licenses for the two shops notified to be located at B.N. Kandriga Village by offering the license fee of Rs.32.50 lakhs, whereas, the fifth respondent has offered to take the license at Nelvai Village of B.N. Kandriga Mandal. The fifth respondent was thus granted the license for Nelvai Village and it appears he applied for a shift of his licensed premises for no valid or justifiable reasons and hence, the order passed by the Commissioner on 18.08.2014 deserves to be set -aside.