AMRUTHA WINES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners are existing licensees for the sale of Indian Made foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor by shop licence in Form A4 operating from different premises in Ward No. 10, Periyavaram Cross road, Venkatagiri-II, Nellore District. The 4th respondent is an existing licensee having a Form IIB licence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short 'the Bar rules') viz. , a Bar and Restaurant. The licensed premises of the 4th respondent is in d. No. 16-15, Ward No. 17, Venkatagiri Town, nellore District. The 4th respondent appears to have applied for shifting of the premises to Ward No. 10, Venkatagiri Town. Aggrieved that such shifting will adversely impact the petitioners' business, the petitioners appear to have made representations to the excise Officials on which the Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, nellore called for a detailed report from his subordinates. The Prohibition and excise Superintendent, Gudur by a letter dated 2. 4. 2008 sensitized the Assistant commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, state Task Force, Hyderabad that the 4th respondent was conducting the licensed business in the licensed premises till 15. 1. 2007; thereafter the Excise Inspector, venkatagiri had received information that the furniture in the 4th respondent's licensed premises was shifted to a new premises and that the 4th respondent was intending to pursue the business at a premises which was not authorized. On such information, the Inspector concerned visited the existing premises of the 4th respondent and found the same to be closed. He thereafter visited the proposed premises and found that furniture and other items were shifted from the licensed premises to the new premises. The Inspector thereafter warned the 4th respondent that shifting the premises without prior permission of the 1st respondent would be illegal and action would be initiated. The Excise Inspector however found on inspection that there was no liquor either in the licensed premises or in the new premises. He thereupon sent up a report stating that the 4th respondent was conducting business neither in the licensed premises nor in the new premises, but is intending to shift the premises.

(2.) AT this stage, apprehensive that the 4th respondent would secure permission for shifting of the premises, the writ petition is filed as a preemptive measure to stall the grant of approval for shifting of the premises by the 4th respondent from Ward No. 17 to ward No. 10 of Venkatagiri Town.

(3.) SRI Sairam Goud, the learned counsel would strenuously contend that shifting of business under Form IIB licence from Ward No. 17 to Ward No. 10 would pejoratively impact the petitioners' business under Form A2 licence. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that each of the petitioners had paid huge amounts for obtaining licences for vending liquor by shop and that if the 4th respondent were permitted to start a Bar and Restaurant in Ward no. 10, pursuant to the 1st respondent's granting relevant permission for shifting of the premises from Ward No. 17, the 4th respondent would become a competitor to the petitioners' business and would adversely impact their profit margins.