K PRASAD RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who is a licensee of A4 shop in the name of M/s. Srinivasa Wines in the premises bearing D.No.25 -8 -138 and 25 -8 -138/1, Old Post Office, Visakhapatnam, questions the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, second respondent, dated 31.12.2014 permitting the fifth respondent to shift his A4 shop from the existing premises at Relliveedhi, Visakhapatnam to the premises bearing D.No.25 -8 -140, Ward No.24, I Town Area, Main Road, Visakhapatnam.

(2.) PETITIONER states that he is a licensee of shop notified at Gazette Sl.No.4, Ward No.24 and the fifth respondent is stated to have been a licensee of a shop notified at Gazette Sl.No.1, Ward No.22. Petitioner states that he has been running his shop at premises bearing D.No.25 -8 -138 and 25 -8 -138/1, Old Post Office, Visakhapatnam whereas the fifth respondent is running his shop at premises bearing D.No.20 -1 -29, Relliveedhi, Visakhapatnam.

(3.) THE primary contention of the petitioner is that the premise to shift the shop of the fifth respondent to Ward No.24, under the impugned order, is based on an erroneous report given to the second respondent that the distance between the shop of the petitioner and the proposed shop of the fifth respondent is 100 meters and that shifting may not affect the business of other A4 shops. However, petitioner states that his shop is at a distance of 20 meters from the premises in which the fifth respondent was permitted to shift his shop and as such, the order permitting the shifting is contrary to the A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012 (for short 'the Rules'). Petitioner also questions the impugned order on the ground that under Rule 28(3) of the Rules, though the Commissioner has to give valid reasons for permitting shifting, he has not applied his mind independently and in fact, the shifting was permitted on an erroneous understanding that the distance between the proposed shop and the shop of the petitioner is 100 meters whereas, in fact, it is 20 meters. Petitioner questions the said order of shifting on the ground that it would seriously affect the business of the petitioner in the existing shop for which petitioner has paid huge license fee. When the writ petition came up for admission on 13.01.2015, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel for the fifth respondent took notice and this Court while admitting the writ petition, passed the following interim order: