JADAV GOPAL RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed to declare inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in shifting the subject wine shop or canceling the license, issued to 5th respondent, as illegal and also against the settled principles of law, particularly Rule 27(1) of A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by shop and conditions of License) Rules, 2005( for short, 'the Rules') notified vide G.O.Ms.No.598, Revenue (Exc-II) dated 26.05.2006, and consequently, direct the official respondents to shift the said wine shop forthwith from Chima Naik Thanda.

(2.) Heard Sri A.Anand Achary, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise and Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, unofficial 5th respondent and perused the record.

(3.) 5Th respondent has opened a retail outlet of the wine shop in Chima Naik thanda village which is at cross roads of Lingoji thanda gram panchayat as against permission and license given to her to run the wine shop in Lingoji thanda. The said wine shop being run by 5th respondent was near to Lal tekdi school, Gurukul school and Junior College of Lal tekdi, wherein thousands of students have been studying. There is a Hanuman temple nearby the said wine shop. The petitioner herein has made applications dated 25.10.2019 and 13.11.2019 to 2nd and 3rd respondents requesting them to prevent construction of the wine shop at unauthorized place at Chima Naik thanda, which is other than the permitted place of Lingoji thanda. Despite receiving and acknowledging, they have not taken any action. The General Secretary and Vice President of the PESA Committee, established under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (for short, 'the PESA Act, 1996'), along with 31 villagers of Chima Naik thanda, have given a representation dated 25.10.2019 to 3rd respondent to prevent the illegal and unauthorized construction of the wine shop by 5th respondent in the said unauthorized place of Chima Naik thanda but there is no response on the said representation also. Thus, according to the petitioner, 5th respondent is running wine shop in violation of the Rules notified vide G.O.Ms. No.598, Revenue (Exc-II) dated 26.05.2006, prescribing the location of liquor shops should be 100 meters far from the places of worship and educational institutions etc.