LAWS(APH)-2005-9-54

CH SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO Vs. COMMISSIONER PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

Decided On September 16, 2005
CH.SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of the Notification dated 26-5-2005 issued by the district Collector, East Godavari inviting tenders from the intending tenderers for grant of lease of right to sell liquor by shop for the period from 1-7-2005 to 30-6-2006, the petitioner has submitted his tender and in the auction held on 2-6-2005 he was declared as the successful bidder in respect of Koripalli Village of Karapa Mandal, East Godavari district. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished the required Deposits and Bank Guarantees together with the requisite documents which were forwarded to the 2nd respondent - Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise for issuance of a licence in favour of the petitioner. As required under the statutory rules, the petitioner has selected the premises bearing Door No. 2-154 of Koripalli Village of Karapa Mandal, e. G. District for establishing a shop, for sale of the liquor. The Station house Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Tallarevu having inspected the said premises on 15-6-2005, certified that the said premises was not situated within 100 mts. distance from any place of Public Worship or educational Institution or Hospital and 50 mts. from any National highway as specified under Rule 27 of the A. P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules') and that the premises was suitable for location of the retail shop. However, the 2nd respondent by order 23-6-2005 directed the petitioner to select another suitable premises in Koripalli Village to avoid unnecessary complications in future.

(2.) A perusal of the said order shows that one R. Jagapati Rao who is the successful auction purchaser of the shop of Karapa Village filed an objection Petition stating that if the shop at Koripalli is established at door No. 2-154, he will be put to irreparable loss. In pursuance thereof, it appears that remarks were called for from the 4th respondent Station House Officer, Tallarevu, who enquired into the matter and submitted his remarks dated 22-6-2005. On the basis of the said report, the 2nd respondent passed the following order :

(3.) THE said order of the 2nd respondent dated 23-6-2005 is under challenge in this writ petition contending that the impugned order was passed on extraneous considerations to favour the successful bidders in respect of the shops in Karapa Village. It was also contended that since the petitioner has satisfied the conditions specified under Rule 27 of the Rules, the 2nd respondent is not justified in not approving the premises selected by the petitioner.