KALLAM SUBBA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Writ Petitioners are IL-24 (retail) shop vendors in Guntur District. The licences for the retail sale of all kinds of Indian Liquor/Foreign Liquor and Beer in the form of IL-24 were granted to the petitioners at various places of Guntur District for the Excise Year 1998-99 on complying with all the formalities as per the rules. The Excise Year of 1998-99 is from 01-04-1998 ending by 31-03-1999. Immediately after one month of the commencement of business, the licencing authority suspended the licences of the petitioners on the ground that the location of their premises are contrary to Rule 6 of A.P. Excise (Indian and Foreign Liquor Retail Sale Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1993')- Questioning the suspension orders, Writ Petitions have been filed, which were disposed of by this Court directing the authorities to consider the representations of the petitioners and on the instructions issued by the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, the reverification was made in which it was found that all the licenced premises of the petitioners are in accordance with the aforesaid Rule 6, and therefore, the suspension orders have been revoked permitting the petitioners to carry on their business.

(2.) The petitioners filed representations for grant of remission of proportionate rental and the licence fee and pending the representations, they have also filed W.P. No. 29719/98 which was disposed of by this Court on 28-10-1998 directing the respondents to immediately dispose of their representations. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the representations of the petitioners were considered and rejected by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Guntur District vide his orders in R.C.No. 919/98/B3, dated 29-11-1998.

(3.) Questioning the said order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition claiming for the proportionate remission of rental as well as the licence fee for the period during which their shops were remained closed on account of the illegal suspension by the 3rd respondent. The petitioners 1 to 27 were the petitioners in the earlier writ petition, whose representations have been rejected by the impugned order. Petitioners 28 to 32 are the similarly situated persons, therefore, all of them have filed a common writ petition by paying separate Court fee, raising a common question of law as common issues are involved.