KAMALA WINES NEKARIKALLU Vs. COMMISSIONER PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a licensee in form IL-24 and it established a wine shop at Nekarikallu village and mandal, Guntur District. It feels aggrieved by the orders of the Government in G.O.Rt. No.2106, dated 30-12-2004, and the consequential order dated 3-1-2005 passed by the second respondent, permitting the third respondent to shift its wine shop from Gullapalli village to Nekarikallu village. The petitioner contends that shifting of IL-24 shop is permissible under Rule 35 of the A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules') only within the revenue village/Municipality/Municipal Corporation concerned and not from one village to another.

(2.) Sri C.B. Mohan Reddy, learnedcounsel for the petitioner, submits that the matter of shifting of IL-24 shops is governed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 35 of the Rules and under the Rule, as it stands now, shifting is permissible only within the same village and not from one village to another. He contends that while issuing G.O.Rt No.2106, dated 30-12-2004, the Government referred to the Rule, before it was amended, and even according to the un-amended Rule, shifting of shops from one village to another is permissible if only there is no existing shop in the revenue village to which the shop is proposed to be shifted. Learned counsel states that the Government has no power to grant exemption and the G.O. as well as the consequential order cannot be sustained in law.

(3.) Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the third respondent, submits that IL-24 shop established by his client at Gullapalli village was blasted by the naxalites on 1-11-2003 and it remained closed since 1-10-2004 due to threats. He submits that the third respondent approached the Government as well as respondents 1 and 2 seeking permission to shift the shop and the permission was accorded strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.