VISLAVAIH THAVIRYA Vs. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come to this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India without any real cause. He states that he is the owner of the premises, having purchased the same under registered sale deed, dated 15-4-1985, in which the third respondent is running a FL - 24 liquor shop. He does not seem to have objected to the running of the liquor shop by the third respondent till recently. He states that he made a representation, dated 26-8-1994, to the Excise Superintendent, Ranga Reddy District-first respondent herein requesting him not to grant or renew FL - 24 licence in the name of the third respondent in his premises for the excise year 1994-95. He states that he has been consistently going round the excise office since then to get his request considered and then he adds that he learnt that his request would be considered only if there was a direction from this Court to consider the said request.

(2.) I am afraid that cannot be the basis for approaching this Court. There is no material what so ever to show that the first and second respondents refused to consider his request or rejected his request.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner himself has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court rendered by Smt. Justice K. Amareswari in A. Prabhakar Goud vs. Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad (1) 1985(2) APLJ 48 (S.N.) interpreting Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack & Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969. As per the short noted report, the said decision is to the following effect. "Rule 5 enjoins that a private premises cannot be approved without the consent of the owner for location of an excise shop. The licensee must be one who is entitled to possession. Either there must be a valid lease by the owner of the premises or his consent or permission for opening a shop in the said premises. It is only then the premises can be approved for location of a shop. The respondents cannot approve a premises in respect of which there is no lease or permission in favour of the licensee. In the present case long before the excise year 1984-85 had commenced, the petitioner had informed the respondents that he was not willing to have the toddy or arrack business carried on in his premises and requested the authorities not to grant approval for the said premises. There is no lease of the land by the owner. In the circumstances, the approval given by the Excise Superintendent notwithstanding the intimation given by the owner withdrawing hts consent for location of a shop is illegal. No permission can be granted to a person to sell liquor in somebody else's premises without his consent."