K V RAMANA REDDY Vs. COM OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have obtained licence for the excise year 1978 79 for the exclusive right of sale of liquor for the liquor shops of the villages of Ankapur. Pipri, (Range Khudavanpur) Issapalli, Argul, Govindpet, Narkunda (Range Bhumagal) Cbengal, Sunket, Ramannapet, Hasor Kothur Palem Thimmapur, Wadiat, Uploor, Kothapalli, Dussapur, and Nellore of Armoor Taluk, Nizamabad District. In these villages there was then licence for sale of Indian liquor or Foreign liquor. They claim that under the licence granted to them, they have the exclusive right to sell liquor in the said villages and that the Government have no power or jurisdiction to grant any licence to or confer any right on any other person to sell any liquor in any form whatsoever. The claim is founded on sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Andbra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Lease of liquor Rules') Under the said sub rule, it is the contention of the petitioners that a licence for the sale of Indian and Foreign liquor other than the arrack and toddy, can only be granted in the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and such other places as the State Government may notify. But it is pleaded that none of the villages in respect of which the petitioners have obtained licence to sell arrack have been notified by the Government as required under Sub-Rule (3). Nevertheless, it is urged that the third respondent, viz , Superintendent of Excise, Nizamabad, is presuading the second respondant Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad to issue licences to various persons for the sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor in the. said villages and (hey are likely to grant licences to various persons. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ Petition praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to grant any licences for the sale of Foreign or Indian Liquor in any of the 17 villages mentioned in the Writ Petition.

(2.) In the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that the petitioners have obtained a licence for the sale of arrack in the villages mentioned by them, But it is pleaded by the respondents that the Government have power to grant licences for the sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor under the Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 (hereinafter called 'the Foreign Liquor, Rules') made in Supersession of all rules on the subject, and sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Lease of liquor Rules is inapplicable to the grant of licences under the Foreign Liquor Rules, It is not denied that the said villages have not been notified as alleged by the petitioners as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Lease of Liquor Rules. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that some applications for the grant of licences in the said villages under the. foreign liquor rules are pending.

(3.) Tt is thus the common case of both the parties that the petitioners are the licencees of the arrack shops for the 17 villages mentioned ahove and that the said villages have not been notified under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Lease of Liquor Rules for the grant of licences to sell India and Foreign Liquors. While it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no licences to sell Indian and Foreign Liquor other than arrack and toddy in the said villages can be granted in the absence of any such notification, it is asserted by the learned Government Pleader that the Government have power to issue licences for the sale of Tndian and Foreign liquor any where in the state pf Andhra Pradesh under the Foreign Liquor Rules which are special rules made in supersession of all existing rules on the subject,