KOLAN NITHISH REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the premises bearing No.8/2/293/82/C/64, Ground Floor, situated at Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, belongs to the Respondent No.5. The Respondent Nos.5 and 6 acquainted with each other and in the year 2018, the Respondent No.5 offered to lease the said property in favour of Respondent No.6 on a monthly rent of Rs.40,000.00 and accordingly, respondent No.6 paid a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs towards advance to the Respondent No.5 on 3/9/2019 and spent huge amount for renovation and development of the said premises. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.6 was granted licence to run liquor retail A4 shop for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 and started doing liquor business in the said premises under the name and style "Hi-Spirits". It is further case of the petitioner that on 9/11/2021, respondent No.2 issued Gazette notification for drawal of lots for Grant of license to liquor retail A4 shops under Rule 5 of Telangana Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012 (for short 'Excise Rules, 2012') for the period from 1/12/2021 to 30/11/2023. The petitioner succeeded in the said notification and he was granted license vide No.HYD027/2021-23, dt.17/1/2022 to run liquor retail A4 shop. It is further case of the petitioner that as there was already existing liquor retail A4 shop in subject premises, the petitioner obtained the same from respondent No.6 and started running liquor retail A4 shop under the name and style 'M/s.Hyderabad Wine Mart'. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.6 is also a partner in the liquor retail A4 shop being run by him. However, due to internal disputes between the Respondent Nos.5 and 6, the Respondent No.5 made a representation dt.5/2/2022 on the file of Respondent No.2 requesting to take appropriate action for unauthorized running of wine shop at the subject premises. It is further case of the petitioner that without following due process of law, respondent No.5 is trying to evict the petitioner through respondent No.2. It is further case of the petitioner that as the Respondent No.5 was creating hurdles and threatening to dispossess the petitioner by force, the Respondent No.6 filed a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.197/2022 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the Respondent No.5 seeking perpetual injunction and the said Court granted status quo order in I.A.No.543/2022. The respondent No.5, questioning the action of the excise authorities in not disposing of his representation, filed a Writ Petition No.43716 of 2022 on the file of this Court. In the said Writ Petition, this Court granted interim order directing the respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation submitted by the respondent No.5 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Pursuant to the said interim direction, the respondent No.2 has passed impugned order dtd. 29/5/2023 directing the petitioner herein to shift/relocate the liquor A4 shop i.e, M/s. Hyderabad Wine Mart in G.SI.No.HYD02 within 15 days from the existing premises in public interest, in terms of Rule 28 of the Excise Rules, 2012. It is the case of the petitioner that without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondent No.6, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 inter alia stating that respondent No.5 has filed Writ Petition No.43716 of 2022 on the file of this Court, wherein this Court vide interim order dtd. 19/12/2022 directed the respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation dtd. 5/2/2022 filed by the respondent No.5 herein within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and also directed the respondent No.2 to follow principles of natural justice and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein/respondent No.5 therein before final orders are passed. In compliance of the same, the respondent No.2 gave opportunity to all the parties and personally heard the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein. The respondent No.5 has contended before the respondent No.2 that earlier he leased the premises to respondent No.6 and now without his consent, the respondent No.6 has leased the premises to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner also appeared before the respondent No.2 personally on 17/3/2023 and stated that his partner i.e., respondent No.6 is having all the relevant information and as such the respondent No.2 directed them to appear on 21/3/2023. The respondent No.6 appeared and stated that the subject premises was taken on oral lease for a period of ten years and when the disputes arose between the respondent No.5 and petitioner, a civil suit vide O.S.No.197/2022 was filed by the respondent No.6 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking perpetual injunction and the said Court granted status quo order in I.A.No.543/2022 dtd. 21/4/2022. It is stated in the counter that the respondent No.2 after personal hearing all the parties and having considered the entire material on record including the representations of the parties, came to conclusion that the petitioner herein has not submitted any valid document at that time of obtaining licence and the petitioner obtained the licence by misleading the facts to the department and considering all the above aspects, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dtd. 29/5/2023 directing the petitioner to shift/re-locate the A4 shop from the existing premises within a period of 15 days, in terms of Rule 28 of Excise Rules, 2012. It is further stated that since the respondent No.2 is conferred with the powers under Excise Rules, 2012 to pass an order, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 does not suffer from legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.