S. Rayavaram v. Satish

S. Rayavaram Mandal, Visakahapatnam District. 2 Appa Rao, S/o. Yerakaiah, Licencee of M/s. Sri Vijaya Wines, Darlapudi S. Rayavarm Mandal, Visakahapatnam District. 3 T.S. Prakasa Rao, S/o. Krishna, Licencee of M/s. Naidu Wines, Kotharevupolavaram, S. Rayavarm Mandal, Visakahapatnam District. 4 P.V. Ramarajan Rao, S/o. Biuchi Ramanchandra Raju, Licencee of M/s. Satya Wines, Addaroddu Junction, Timmapuram, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakahapatnam District. 5 Kum. P. Nagamani, D/o. Apanna, Licencee of M/s. Kumari Wines, Addaroddu Junction, Timmapuram, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakahapatnam District. 6 R. Srinivas, S/o. Dali Naidu (Licence No. 36/98-99), Licencee of M/s. Sri Maridimamba Wines, Lankilipalem, Paravada Mandal, Visakahapatnam District. 7 Dasari Nagamani, W/o. Tata Rao (Licence NO. 56/98-99), Licencee of M/s. Sri Maridamma Wines, Lankilipalem, Paravada Mandal, Visakahapatnam District. 8 P. Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.

Venkata Reddy (388-98-99), Licencee of M/s. Sri Nukambika Wines, Lankilipalem, Paravada Mandal, Visakahapatnam District. 9 D. Ramu, S/o. Ramana (880/2001), Licencee of M/s. Sri Balaji Wines, Harripalem, Achutapuram Mandal, Visakahapatnam District. 10 M. Venkataramanaiah, S/o. Satyanarayana (85-98-99) Licencee of M/s. Sridevi Wines, Bazar Street, Narasannapet, Srikakulam District. AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Excise-II ) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad Rep. by its Special chief Secretary to Government. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Visakhapatnam district. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 7-2-2005 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to issue licences infavour of third parties pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 7-2-2005 and pass suchother or further orders COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MRS.G.JHANSI COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2517 of 2005 Between: 1 Y.Srinivas S/o Radha Krishna Murthy(436/2000-01) Krishna District.

2 V.V.D.V.N.Prasad S/o V.V.Chowdary( 308/98-99) Licensee of Krathi Wines, Kankipadu 3 A.Jagidsh Kumar S/o Subash Chandra Bose(578/98-99) Licensee of Mithra Wines Kankipadu, Krishna District. 4 K.Sambasiva Rao S/o Pardhasarathi(257/98-99) Licensee of surya Wines, Kankipadu 5 B.Koteswararo S/o Venkateswararo( 263/98-99) Licensee of Raja Wines Punadhipadu, Krishna District. AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue(Excise.II) Department , Secretary, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Speical Chief Secretary to Government 2 The Commissioner , Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent Krishna District. 4 The District Collector, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the G.O.Ms.No.184 dt.

07/02/2005 as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the consequential Notification No.13/2005 issued by the 3rd respondent dt. 11/02/2005 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.A.JAGANNATHA RAO COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2518 of 2005 Between: 1 M.T.V.V. Prasad, S/o Sahadeva Rao (539/98-99), M/s Chandralekha Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2 G. Satyanarayana Raju, S/o Suryanarayana Raju ( 10/2000-01), M/s Sridevi Beer and wines, China Amiram Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 3 K.Nagaraju, S/o Satyanarayana Murthy (58/1998-99) M/s Avinash Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 4 B.V.V. V. Satish, S/o Manga Rao (461/1998-99), M/s Sri Durga Wines, China Amiram, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 5 D.V. Satyanarayana Raju, s/o Suryanarayana Raju (2/2001-02), M/s Purnima Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

6 A. Maheswari, W/o Mohan Rao (120/98-99), M/s Dwaraka Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 7 A. Mohan Rao, S/o Venkatarao ( 121/98-99), M/s Kanakadurga Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 8 K. Ramaraju, S/o Subbaraju ( 377/98-99), M/s Raj Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 9 K. Kondala Rao, S/o Venkanna ( 566/98-99), M/s Siva Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 10 Venkayamma, s/o Subbarao ( 320/98-99), M/s Varalakshmi Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 11 K. Venkataswamy, S/o Ganganna ( 125/98-99), M/s Kalyani Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 12 M. Gopala Krishna, S/o Subbarao, ( 381/98-99), Vijaya Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 13 K.V.L.N. Raju, S/o Appalaraju, ( 495/98-99), M/s G.K. Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 14 S.B.S. Malleswararao, s/o Koti Basavalingam, (21/2000-01) M/s Sri Sai Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

15 K. Nageswararao, S/o Venkateswararao ( 28/2002-03), M/s Suchitra Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 16 T. Venkateswararao, S/o Venkata Krishna ( 582/98-99) M/s Sai Sudha Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 17 K.V.S. Srinivas, s/o Veerarao ( 63/2002-03), M/s Surya Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 18 M.S.S. Naidu, S/o Someswararao ( 572/98-99), M/s Omsi Krishna Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 19 Ch. Ramesh, S/o Venkataswamy (11/2001-02) M/s Vijaya Durga Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 20 K. Venkateswararao, S/o Venkataswamy (59/2002-03), M/s Balalji Wines, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Exciose.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, West Godavari District.

4 The District Collector, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the G.O.Ms.No. 184 dated 7-2-2005 as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the consequential notification No. 13/2005 issued by the 3rd respondent dated 11-2-2005 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2519 of 2005 Between: 1 K.Srinivasaraju, S/o.Venkata Satya Rama Raju(63/1998-99) M/s.Sridevi Wines, Kopalle, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 K.Srinivasarao, S/o.Suryanarayana (379/98-99)M/s.Sri Wines, Bondada Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District.

3 G.Chendrasekhar Rao, S/o.Malleswararao (375/98-99) M/s.Chandrasekhara Wines, Kalla, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 Thota Ramakrishna Rao, S/o.Rama Murthy (374/98-99) M/s. Ramadevi Wines, Seesali, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 5 K.Rajeswarao, S/o.Suryanarayana (735/98-99) M/s.Vijaya Sri Wines, Bondada Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 6 P.Bujji Babu, S/o.Samba Murthy,(62/2002-03) M/s.Gopal Wines, Bethapudi, Bheemavaram Mandal, West Godavari Disrict. 7 M.Bangaramma, W/o.Venkata Satyanaryana Raju,(59/98-99) M/s. Kanaka Durga Wines, Pedamiram, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari Dist. 8 B.H.Ramakrishnamraju, S/o.Seetha Ramaraju (52/2002-03) M/s.Vijaya Wines, Vendra, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District. 9 B.S.Vara Prasad, S/o.Appala Swamy (80/98-99) M/s.Superior Wines, Power Peta, Eluru, West Godavari District. 10 K.Raghavaraju, S/o.Anjeneya Subbaraju(687/98-99) M/s.Excellent Wines, Gun Bazar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

11 P.Satyanarayana, S/o.Anajaiah (82/98-99) M/s.Friendly Wines, Thangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District. 12 M.Somaraju, S/o.Mallapparaju, (83/98-99) M/s.Jolly Wines, Denduluru, West Godavari District. 13 A.V.Ramanjaneyulu, S/o.Leela Arjuna Rao, (87/98-99) M/s.Fine Wines, Kovvali, West Godavari District. 14 K.Venkataraju, S/o.Pitchi Raju @ Seshamraju (85/98-99) M/s.Modern Wines, Pothunuru, West Godavari District. 15 P.Krishnarjuna Rao, S/o.Venkataramaiah (79/98-99) M/s.Joyful Wines, Bheemadolu, West Godavari District. 16 B.Krishna Mohana Raju, S/o.B.V.S.Raju (10/02-03) M/s. Raja Wines, Bheemadolu, West Godavari District. 17 R.Rajeswararao, S/o.Gopalarao (356/98-99) M/s.Srinivasa Wines, Pulla, West Godavari District. AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Excise.II)Department, Secretarait, Hyderabad, rep.by its Special Chief Secretary to Government. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad.

3 The Prohibition and excise, Superintendent, West Godavari District. 4 The District Collector, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 7-2-3005 as consequential notification No.13/ 2005 issued by the 3rd respondent dated 11-2-2005 and pass such other or futther orders as this Hon'ble court feels deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. illegal and arbitrary and set aside COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2520 of 2005 Between: 1 B. Srinivasa Babu, S/o. Adinarayana(174/98-99) M/s. R.R. Liquors, Ramnagar, Anantapur. 2 V. Nagaraju, S/o. Hanumanthu (252/98-99), M/s.

Sri Harsha Wines, Kakkalapalli Colony, Gooty Road, Anantapur. 3 G. Narayanareddy, S/o. Tippareedy (98/98-99), M/s. Bharati Wines, RTC Bus Stand, Anantapur. 4 S. Thippaiah, S/o. Bheemalingappa (91/98-99), M/s. Power Wines, Navaratna Complex, Bypass Road, Anantapur. 5 S.V. Rami Reddy, S/o. Lakshmi Reddy (204/98-99), M/s. Dinesh Wines, Vidyuthnagar, Anantapur. 6 S. Honnurappa, S/o. Yellappa, (217/98-99) M/s. Dolphin Wines, Ballari Road, Anantapur. 7 Harinatha Reddy, S/o. Chalama Reddy (156/98-99) M/s. Dwaraka Wines, Anantapur. 8 K. Chandra Mohan Reddy, S/o. K.V. Chalamareddy (177/98-99) M/s. Sri Krishna Wines, Power Officer Area, Anantapur. 9 P. Ramalinga Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy (237/98-99) M/s. Sri Sindhura Wines, Subash Road, Anantapur. 10 S. Thippaiah, S/o. S. Bheema Lingappa (236/98-99) M/s. Power Wines, Sangamesh Area, Anantapur. 11 E. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Chinna Peddanna (67/98-99) M/s. Sai Priya Wines, Srikantam Circle, Anantapur.

12 Venkataramireddy, S/o. V. Ramakrishnareddy,(17/98-99) M/s. Srikanth Wines, Chinmaya Nagar, Anantapur. 13 K. Pullareddy, S/o. K. Lingareddy, (386/2002-03) M/s. Sri Sai Wines, Anantapur. 14 B. Siva Kumar, S/o. B. Ramappa,(288/98-99) M/s. Sobha Wines, Tadipatri Bus Stand, Anantapur. 15 S. Venkatappa, S/o. Durgappa, (271/98-99) M/s. Sri Sai Wines, Raninagar, Anantapur. 16 V. Narasimhulu, S/o. V.N. Narsimhulu (108/2001-02) M/s. Bharat Wines, Anantapur. 17 B. Siddappah, S/o. B. Basappa, (109/98-99) M/s. Sapthagiri Wines, Canara Bank Area, Anantapur. 18 B. Durgesh, S/o. Narsimhulu, (111/03-04) M/s. Maruthi Wines, Ramnagar, Anantapur. 19 Thimmaraju (135/98-99) M/s. Balaji Wines, Neelam Talkies Road, Anantapur. 20 Yerri Swamy, S/o. Ramappa (91/98-99) M/s. Power Wines, Power House Area, Anantapur. 21 Krishna Murthy, S/o. Moulappa (136/98-991) M/s. Sri Sai Wines, SRMT, Anantapur. 22 Sri Surya Narayana, S/o. Narayanappa (66/98-99) M/s.

Sri Sai Wines, College Road, Anantapur. 23 E. Rama Seshu, S/o. Peda Narayan (9/98-99) M/s. Sri Kumar Wines, 1st Road, Anantapur. 24 Venkataramana, S/o. Subbaiah (89/98-99) M/s. Sri Venkateswara Wines, Maruthi Nagar, Anantapur. 25 Krupakar Reddy, S/o. Rama Krishna Reddy (139/98-99) M/s. Srinivasa Wines, Railway Station Road, Anantapur. 26 K. Ramana, S/o. Sri Ramulu (4/98-99) M/s. Victory Wines, Kamalanagar, Anantapur. 27 Balaji Naidu, S/o. China Ramappa (233/1999-2000) M/s. Vinayaka Wines, Ramchander Nagar, Anantapur. 28 Janardhan (94/98-99) M/s. Kamala Wines, Kamalanagar, Anantapur. 29 Kondaiah, S/o. Kondanna, M/s. Ganga Wines, Ramnagar, Anantapur. 30 Tirupathi Naidu, S/o. Veeranarappa, M/s. Subash Wines, Near Anantapur Club, Anantapur. 31 Gopala Krishna, M/s. Haripriya Wines, Clock Tower Centre, Anantapur. 32 Nagendra (145/02-03) M/s. Madhu Wines, Anantapur. 33 C. Venkatesulu, S/o. Rangappa, M/s. Amaravathi Wines, Kamalanagar, Anantapur.

AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Excise.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Anantapur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the G.O.M.s.Nio. 184 dated 7.2.2005 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to issue licences infavour of third parties pursuant to the GO.Ms.No. 184 dated 7.2.2005 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court feels deem fit. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2524 of 2005 Between: 1 B.Narasimha Goud S/o.Sattaiah Goud (655/2001) Hayatnagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

2 Ravi anjaneya Prasad S/o.Nayudamma 57/98-99) Kunkalamarru, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 M.Narayanamma W/o. Subba Rao (22/98-99) Haripragada Nagar, Chirala Prakasam District. 4 Undrakonda Rama Rao S/o.Subba Rao (380/98-99) Vadarevu, Prakasam District. 5 D.Ramaiah S/o.Venkateswarlu (534/2001-02) Chirala, Prakasam District. 6 Y.Yandi Rao S/o.Kotaiah (215/1998-99) Chirala, Prakasam District. 7 A.Nagendrudu S/o.Pullaiah (359/1998-99) Epurupalem, Prakasam District. 8 M.V.subba Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu (47/1998-99) Gavinivaripalem Prakasam District. 9 M.Subba Reddy S/o.Kondandaramudu (388/1998-99) Chinaganjam, Prakasam District. 10 R.Sambasiva Prasad S/o.Sitaramaiah (358/98-99) Karamchedu, Prakasam District. 11 D.Raghava Reddy S/o.Rami Reddy (61/1998-99) Prakasam District. 12 T.Subdhakara Rao S/o.Prasada Rao (363/1998-99) Prakasam District. 13 Ch.Sarat Babu S/o.Prasada Rao (51/1998-99) Prakasam District.

14 K.Anji Reddy S/o.Venkateswara Reddy (41/1998-99) Vatapalem, Prakasam District. 15 B.Venkateswarlu S/o.Subbaiah (382/1998--99) Chirala, Prakasam District. 16 D.Subba Rao S/o.Satyanarayana (154/1998-99) Podili, Prakasam District. 17 B.Venkata Ramesh Babu S/o.Venkateswarlu (153/1998-99) Podili, Prakasam District. 18 Ch.Narasimha Reddy S/o.Rosaiah (298/1998-99) M/s Sri Saikrishna Wines Podili, Prakasam District. 19 A.Sanjeeva Reddy S/o.Venkata Subba Reddy (548/2002-03) Prakasam District. 20 K.Ramakrishna Reddy S/o.Venkata reddy (185/1998-99) Medapi, Prakasam District. 21 G.Lingeswara Rao S/o.Chenchaiah (336/1998-99) Medapi, Prakasam District. 22 Peraiah S/o.Basavaiah (264/1998-99) Tripurantakam, Prakasam District. 23 J.Narayana S/o.Chinna Krishnaiah (470/1998-99) Tripurantakam, Prakasam District. 24 S.Ramasubba Reddy S/o.Kasi Reddy (308/1998-99) Tharlupadu, Prakasam District. 25 D.Nagarjuna Reddy S/o.D.V.Krishna Reddy (184/98-99) Rayavaram, Prakasam District.

26 G.Nageswara Reddy S/o.koti Reddy (216/98-99) P.Dornala, Prakasam Ditrict. 27 G.Kasi Eswara Rao S/o.Pitchaiah (585/2002-03) Thippaiahpalem, Prakasam District. 28 P.Galayya S/o.Guravaiah (543/2001-02) Tarlupadu, Prakasam District. 29 D.Rajasekhar Reddy S/o.D.V.Krishna Reddy (527/2000-01) Kalujuvvalapadu, Prakasam District. 30 K.Channa Krishna S/o.Kesaiah (584/2002-03 Kalujuvvalapadu, Prakasam District. 31 G.Subba Reddy S/o.Atchi Reddy (583/2002-03) P.Dornala, Prakasam District. 32 T.Chennappa Reddy S/o.Venkatareddy (560/2002-03) Tripurantakam, Prakasam District. 33 D.Nagarjuna Reddy S/o.D.V.Krishna Reddy (184/98-99) Rayavaram, Prakasam District. 34 N.Surya Chandra Sekhar S/o.N.Srinivasa Rao (1102/2003-04) Indrapalem Village, Kakinda Rural Mandal East Godavari District. 35 D.v.v.M. Prasad S/o.Ganga Raju (883/202-03) Kothuru Village, Kakinda Rural Mandal East Godavari District. 36 T.S.Prasad S/o.Subba Rao (994/2002-03) Kakinda, East Godavari District.

37 Ch.Satyanarayana S/o.Tata Rao (993/2002-2003) Ramanaiahpet Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal East Godavari District. 38 Smt. Ch.Bapi Raju W/o.Surya Chakra Tataji (1081/2003-04) Kakinda, East Godavari District. 39 Ch.Krishna Murthy s/o.Ramanna (1094/2003-040 Chendurthi Village, Gollaprolu Mandal East Godavari District. 40 Ch.V.Gopala Krishna S/o.Kondal Rao (1/98-99) Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. 41 Kola Kesavarao S/o.Apprao (86/98-99) Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. 42 D.V.B.Prasad S/o.Suiryaprasadrao (5/02-03) Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. 43 B.ranjith Kumar S/o.Srinivasrao (225/98-99) Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. 44 G.Satyanarayana S/o.Suryanarayana (127/98-99) Bobbili, Vizanagaram District. 45 M.Ramana Murthy S/o.Narayana Murthy (63/98-99) Bobbili Vizianagaram District. 46 R.Raja Rao S/o.Eswararao (11/98-99) Bobbili, Vizianagaram District 47 V.Trinadhanaidu S/o.Raminaiu (220/98-99) M/s Pydimamba Wines Piridi, Vizianagaram District.

48 Reddy Venu S/o.Polinaidu (12/98-99) Chintada, Vizianagarm District. 49 D.Mohan Rao S/o.Appalaswamy Naidu (247/98-99) Alajangi, Vizianagaram District 50 Vakada Srinivasarao S/o.Rami Naidu (226/01-02) Mettavalasa, Vizianagaram District. 51 A.Gopala rao S/o.Venkataranga Rao (124/98-99) Balijipeta, Vizianagaram District. 52 M.Surya Prakash Rao S/o.Sri Ramamurthy (6/01-02) Narayanapuram, Vizianagaram District. 53 M.Surya Prakash Rao S/o.Sri Ramamurthy (6/01-02) Narayanapuram, Vizianagaram District. 54 T.Appalanaidu S/o.Appalaswamy (76/98-99) M/s Manikanta Wines Pedapenki, Vizianagaram. 55 P.Laxmunaidu S/o.Raminaidu (23/00-01) Arasada Balijipeta Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 56 B.Satya Lakshmi W/o.Ramana Murthy (10/1/20) Antipeta, Seethanagaram Mandal Vizianagaram District. 57 K.Harichandra Prasad S/o.Late Surya Rao (29/00-01) China Bogili, Seethanagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 58 M.V.Ramana S/o.Apparao (56/98-99) Seetthanagaram, Seethanagaram Mandal Vizianagaram District.

59 K.Krishna Kumar S/o.Krishna Rao (2/98-99) Seethangaram, Vizianagaram Dist. 60 R.Y.Chowdari S/o.Narasingarao (39/2002-03) Seethanagaram, Vizianagaram Dist. 61 Sankar Kamal Varma S/o.Sankarrao (18/00-01) Seethanagaram, Vizianagaram Dist. 62 B.Srinivasa Chakravarthy S/o.Chandrasekharrao (33/98-99) Makkuva, Vizianagaram District. 63 M.Prakash S/o.Satyanarayana (4/00-01) Venkatabiri Puram, Vizianagaram District. 64 J.Prasad S/o.Haranadh Kumar (12/02-03) Sambara, Vizianagaram District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue (Excise.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Govt. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibitionand Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent Vizianagaram District. 4 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent East Godavari District, Kakinada. 6 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent Prakasam District, Ongole. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the G.O.Ms.No.184 dt.7.2.2005 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to grant the licences infavour of third parties purusant to the G.O.184 dt.7.2.2005.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2534 of 2005 Between: Sri B. Srinivasulu, Proprietor of Sri Manjira Wines, S/o Bala Yellaiah, aged 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o Badepally, Jadcherla Mandal, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Chief Secretary, Revenue ( Excise-II) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus (a) Declare that portion of impugned G.O.No. 206 dt. 10-2-2005 amending Rule 3 (h) of the A.P.Indian Liquor & Foreign Liquor Rules 1970 and consequently to declare the procedure adopted for grant of Il-24 B Licence ie., permit rooms to those licensee holders who have IL-24 Licence in a town which has more than 5000 to 25,000 population, as bad and illegal (b) to delcare the impugned G.O.No.

184 dt. 7-2- 2005 as invalid, discriminatory and ultravires the operation of the Indian Liquor and foreign Liquor Rules, 1970,and to pass necessary orders. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: MR.ERANKI PHANIKUMAR COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2541 of 2005 Between: Gujjula Shankar Reddy S/o Ganga Reddy, Licensee and owner of Pavan Wines, Phulong Cross Roads, Nizamabad Town, Nizamabad District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special chief Secretary to Government Revenue Department Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh , Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise Department, Nizamabad District , Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to renew the petitioner's IL 24-Retail Lisense for the year 2005-2006 and onwards by holding G.O.Ms.No.184-Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dt.

7-2-2005 as arbitrary, illegal, unjustified, discriminatory and violative of the provisions, of AP., Excise Act and the impungned orders issued Rules made thereunder and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.GOPALA RAO GANDRAKOTA COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2543 of 2005 Between: 1 M/s. Paradise Wines, Munsif Junction, Kakinada, rep by its Proprietor, Nagireddy Krishna Murthy, S/o. Manikyam, aged 74 years, R/o. Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 M/s. Paradise Wines, Kakinada, rep by its Proprietor, K. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 M/s. Paradise Wines, Ramachandrapuram, rep by its Proprietor, N. Srinivasa Prasada Rao, S/o. Krishna Murthy, aged about 40 years, R/o.

Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. 4 M/s. Paradise Wines, Velangi, rep by its Proprietor, K.V.R. Murthy, S/o. Gangadhara Rao, aged about 40 years, R/o. Velangi, East Godavari District. 5 M/s. Sri Kanya Wines, Amujuru, rep by its Proprietor, K. Radha Krishna, S/o. V. Rama Rao, aged 51 years, R/o. Amujuru, East Godavari District. 6 M/s. Paradise Wines, Dangeru, rep by its Proprietor, Anasuri Suryanarayama, aged 46 years, R/o. Mandapeta, East Godavari District. 7 M/s. Surya Chandra Wines, Mandapeta, rep by its Proprietor, M. Babu Rao, S/o. Tatabbai, aged 50 years, R/o. Mandapeta, East Godavari District. 8 M/s. Brandy Shop, Mandapeta, Alamuru, rep by its Proprietor, R. Rambabu S/o. Chandra Rao, aged about 48 years, R/o. Mandapeta, East Godavari District. 9 M/s. Siva Kalyani Wines, Mandapeta, Rep. by its Proprietor, V. Rama Rao S/o. Surayya, aged 39 yrs, R/o. Mandapeta, East Godavari District. 10 M/s. Maduri Wines, Z. Medapdu, Rep. by its Proprietor, O. Lakshman Kumar S/o.

O. Surya Bhaskar Rao, age 42yrs. R/o. Z. Medapadu, Mandapeta, East Godavari District. 11 M/s. Brandy shop, Modukuru, Alamuru Mandal, Rep. by its Proprietor, G. Subba Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 33 yrs, R/o.Modukuru, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. 12 M/s. Brandy shop, Narsipudi, , Alamuru Mandal, Rep. by its Proprietor, Smt. Kalla Mangadevi, aged 49 yrs W/o. Late Govindu R/o.Narsipudi, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. 13 M/s. Siva Kalyani Wines, Chinthaluru Rep. by its Proprietor, S. Ankala Raju S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 40 yrs, R/o. D.No. 1-43, Chinthaluru, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. 14 M/s. Brandy Shop, Chinthalauru, Alamuru Mandal, Rep. by its Proprietor, D.S. Chowdary, S/o. Veeraju, aged 35 yrs, R/o. D.No. 3-224, Chinthaluru, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. 15 M/s. Siva Kalyani Wines, Alamuru, rep. by its Propietor, N. Krishna Rao S/o. Seethaiah, aged 38 yrs, R/o. D.No. 3-78, Alamauru, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District.

16 M/s. Brandy Shop, Alamuru Rep. by its Proprietor,, K.S.V. Prasad, S/o. Ranga Rao, aged 51 yrs, R/o. D.No. 5-90, Alamuru, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. 17 M/s. Brandy Shop, Jonnada, Rep. by its Proprietor, V. Ramana, S/o. Simhachalama, aged 48 yrs, R/o. D.No. 5-16, Jonnada, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. 18 M/s. Siva Kalyani Wines, CHemudulanka, Rep. by its Proprietor, Y. Janikayya, S/o. Veerraju, aged 44 yrs, R/o. D.No. 2-94, Chemudulanka, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. 19 M/s. A.B.C. Wines, Madiki, Rep. by its Proprietor, K.V. Subba Rao S/o. Subba Rao, aged 44 yrs, R/o. D.No. 2-72, Madiki, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. 20 M/s. Sridevi Wines, Tadepalligudem, Rep. by its Proprietor, Maddukuri Pardha Saradhi S/o. Dhana Raju, aged about 42 yrs, R/o. C/o. B.V.R. Complex, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 21 Sri Sai Wines, Madhavaram Rep. by its Proprietor, Y. Tilak Kumar S/o.

Satyanarayana, aged about 25 years, R/o. B.V.R. Complex, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 22 M/s.Vasudeva Wines, Tadepalligudem, Rep. by its Propritor, P.V. Satyanarayana S/o. Subba rao, aged about 38 yrs, R/o. C/o. Vasudeva Wines, Main Road, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 23 M/s. Bhavani Wines, Tadepalligudem, Rep. by its Propritor, G.P. Agarwal S/o. Byadayanad, aged about 44 yrs, R/o. C/o. Bhavani Wines,K.N. Road, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 24 M/s. Tirumala Wines, Penumantra, Rep. by its Proprietor, P. Venkateswara Rao S/o. Krishna Rao, aged about 45 yearS R/o. B.V.R. Complex, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 25 M/s. Sai Wines, Prathipadu, Rep. by its proprietor, M. Venkata Narayana S/o. Tirumala Raidu, aged about 44 years, R/o. Main Road, Navabpalem, West Godavari District. 26 M/s. Balaji Wines, Tadepalligudem, Rep. by its Proprietor, Yasa Naga Venkata Ramesh, S/o.

Venkat Ratnam, aged 40 years,R/o. C/o. Balaji Wines, K.N. Road, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 27 M/s. Raja Wines, Ravipadu, Rep. by its Proprietor, T. Raja Babu S/o. Surya Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o. Near O.S. Lake, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 28 M/s. Sri Ganesh Wines, Fish Market Centre, Rep. by its Proprietor, Lankalapalli Venkata Ganesh, S/o. Hanumanthar, aged about 44 years, R/o. D.No. 20D07044, Fish Market Centre, Kothapet, Eluru, West Godavari District. 29 M/s. Sri Rama WInes, Eluru, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mandhyanapu Dhanamjayarao, S/o. Ramakrishnadass, aged 36 years, R/o. D.No. 22V-1-41, Near Vasanthamahal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 30 M/s. R.K. Wines, Eluru, Rep. by its Proprietor, Kotipalli Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o. Adinarayana, aged 40 years, R/o. D.No. 8-2-134/42, Fish Market Area, Eluru, West Godavari District. 31 M/s. Pavani Wines, Tangellamudi, Rep. by its Proprietor, K.N.V. Ramesh, S/o.

Surya Prakasha Rao, aged 39 years, R/o. D.No. 15-17-3, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District. 32 M/s. Rajesh Wines, Pedapadu, Rep. by its Proprietor, Talluri Rama Krishna S/o. Rama Rao, aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No. 6-2B/C-746, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. 33 M/s. Anusha Wines, Chataparru, Rep. by its Proprietor, Tuta Srinivasa Rao S/o. Nageswara Rao, aged about 34 years, R/o. D.No. C6-58, Chataparru, Eluru, West Godavari District. 34 M/s. Sai Wines, Eluru, Rep. by its Proprietor, Lankalapalli Naga Venkata Durga Prasad, S/o. Rama Rao, aged about 36 years, R/o. Nowduru (V), Veeravasaram Mandal, West Godavari District. 35 M/s. Siva Wines, Eluru, Rep. by its Proprietor, Musunuru Rama Mohana Rao, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, aged about 40 years, R/o. D.No.22c-10-2, Near Old Bus stand, Eluru-I, West Godavari District. 36 M/s. Chakri Liquors, N.R. Pet, Rep. by its Proprietor, M. Venkata Rama Mohan Rao, S/o.

Anga Rao, aged about 31 years, R/o. D.No.25-15-22, N.R. Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District. 37 M/s. Jyothi Wines, Eluru, Rep. by its Proprietor, B.Ch, Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Lakshmaiah, aged about 55 years, R/o. Bhavisettyvaripet, Eluru, West Godavari District. 38 M/s. K.K. Wines, Chapalachettu Centre, Rep. by its Proprietor, K. Krishna, S/o. Manikyala rao, aged 51 years, R/o. Kammulavari Street,. Eluru-I, West Godavari District. 39 M/s. Dhanesh Wines, Tadepalligudem, Rep. by its Proprietor, Samarla Rama Kumar, S/o. Nagaraju, aged about 42 years, R/o. Pallapu Street, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 40 M/s. Hanuman Wines, Kaikaram, Rep. by its Proprietor, Bubathula Anjaneyulu, S/o. Pullaiah, aged about 56 years, R/o. D.No. 2/142, N.H. Road, Kaikaram, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District. 41 M/s. Devi Wines, Chintalapudi, Rep. by its Proprietor, Kondety Manikyala Rao S/o. Nancharaiah, aged 48 yrs, R/o.

Western Street, Eluru-I, West Godavari District. 42 M/s. Siva Jyothi Wines, Raghavapuram, Rep. by its Proprietor, Olety Vebnkateswara Rao S/o. Rattaiah, aged about 64 years, R/o. Ratnalagunt, West Godavari District. 43 M/s. Siva Jyothi Wines, Rangapuram, Rep. by its Proprietor, Musunuru Sambasiva Rao S/o. Rattaiah, aged about 65 years,R/o. D.No. 4-12/A, Rangapuram, West Godavari District. 44 M/s. Siva Jyothi Wines, Lingapalem, Rep. by its Proprietor, R. Krishna Kumar,S/o. Satyanarayana, aged about 42 years, R/o. Vijayarai, Lingapalem, West Godavari District. 45 M/s. Siva Jyothi Wines, Vijayarai, Rep. by its Proprietor, Bollina Rambau S/o. Prakasa Rao, aged about 55 years, R/o. D.No. 2-304/A, Vijayarai, Siggagudem, West Godavari District. 46 M/s. Siva Jyothi Wines, Dharmajigudem, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mokkapaty Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 52 years, R/o. Kakinada, East Godavari District. 47 M/s.

Jyothi Wines, Chinthalapudi, Rep. by its Proprietor, Olety Pitchaiah S/o. Rattaiah, aged about 70 years, R/o. Ratnalagunta, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District. 48 M/s. Sri Ganesh Wines, T. Narasapuram, Rep. by its Proprietor, Kondety Harichandra Rao, S/o. Venkataramaiah, aged about 56 years, R/o. T. Narasapuram, Eluru-2, West Godavari District. 49 M/s. Sri Gopal Wines, Gundugolanu, Rep. by its Proprietor, Lankalapalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, aged about 34 years, R/o. Eastern Street, Gundugolanu, Eluru, West Godavari District. 50 M/s. Paradise Wines, Teki, Rep. by its Proprietor, I. Muneswara Rao S/o. Satiyya, aged about 47 years, R/o. Taki, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 51 M/s. Paradise Wines, Pamarru, Rep. by its Proprietor, K.V.V.R.K.Prasad S/o.Gangadharam, aged about 36 years, R/o. Pamarru, Pamarru Mandal, East Godavari District. 52 M/s. Sridevi Wines, Venturu, Rep. by its Proprietor, R. Venkata Rao S/o.

Bhaskara Rao, aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No. 5-76/A, Venturu, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 53 M/s. Sagar Wines, Gollapalem, Rep. by its Proprietor, D. Krishna Reddy S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 35 years, R/o. D.No. 4-212/1, Gollapalem, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District. 54 M/s. Paradise Wines, Gollapalem, Rep. by its proprietor, Gubbala Yesuraju S/o. Veeranna, aged about 40 years, R/o. D.No. 28-9-89, Gollapalem, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District. 55 M/s. Paradise Wines, Aryavatam, Rep. by its Proprietor, K. Satyanarayana S/o. Subba Raju, aged about 53 years, R/o. Aryavatam, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District. AND ... PETITIONERS 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Special Chief Secretary, Revenue(Excise-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada Division at Kakinada, East Godavari District.

4 Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 5 Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, West Godavari District at Eluru. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus of any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the 1st respondent contained in G.O.Ms. No. 184, Revenue (Excise-II) Department dt. 07- 2-2005 purporting to avoid renewal of the existing IL-24 Licenses and proceeding to issue fresh licenses for all the 7500 IL-24 shops in the State, is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to continue to renew the IL-24 licenses of the petitioners for the Excise Year 2005-2006 onwards and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2544 of 2005 Between: Gujjula Rajasekhar Reddy S/o. G. Shankar Reddy, Licensee and owner of Pavan Wines, Pottangal (Vill.), Kotgir (Mandal), Nizamabad District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise Department, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction or an appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to renew the petitioner's IL 24-Retail Lisense for the year 2005-2006 and ownwrds by holding that the impugned orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.184-Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dt.

7-2-2005 as arbitrary, illegal, unjustified, discriminatory and violative of the provisions of A.P. Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder and quash the same inso far as the petitioner is concerned and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.GOPALA RAOGANDRAKOTA COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2633 of 2005 Between: 1 M/s.Polamamba Wines, Thagarapuvalasa S.V.S.S.Raju, S/o.Venkata Krishnam Raju R/o.Visakhapatnam. 2 M/s.Babu Wines, Main Road, Thagarapuvalasa Sri Kopalla Venkata Rao, S/o.Appala Narsaiah, R/o.Thagarapuvalasa Visakhapatnam Dist. 3 M/s.Raju Wines, Thagarapuvalasa, Sr.Nandika Srinivasu, S/o.Chinnayellayya, R/o.Thagarapuvalasa, Visakhapatnam District. 4 M/s.Sri Sai Ram Wines, Thagarapuvalasa Sri K.Krishna Murthy, S/o.Lingaiah, R/o.Thagarapuvalasa, Visakhapatnam District.

5 M/s.Janaki Rama Liquors Tagarapuvalasa, N.V.Raju, S/o.Bhupala Raju, R/o.Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 6 M/s.Reddy Wines, Peddabazar, Bheemili Sri S.Sugunakar Reddy, S/o.Kadganarayana Reddy, R/o.Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 7 M/s.Sri Durga Wine, Bheemunipatnam, Sri C.Yellayya Reddy, S/o.Venkappa, R/o.Thagarapuvalasa, Visakhapatnam District. 8 M/s.Venkateswara Wines, Bheemunipatnam Sri Kesuru Venkata Rao, S/o.Appa Rao, R/o.Thagarapuvalasa, Visakhapatnam District. 9 M/s. Sravani Wines, Devarapalli, Gullipalli Sreenu, S/o.Musili Naidu, R/o.Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 10 M/s.Devarapalli Wines, D.No.1-183/8, Raiwada Road, Devarapalli Sri Challa Yerupu Naidu, S/o.Gangu Naidu, R/o.Raivada, Visakhapatnam District. 11 M/s.Naide Wines, M.Alamanda Sri Gunuru Errunaidu, S/o.Appalanaidu, R/o.Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District. 12 M/s. Raja Rajeswari Wines, D.No.10-176, Main Road, Devarapalli Sr Earni Narasimha Murthy S/o.Satyanarayana, R/o.Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam District.

13 M/s.Mallaikarjuna Wines, Cheedikada M.Prasad,S/o.Appa Rao. R/o.K.Kotapadu, Visakhapatnam District. 14 M/s.Sai Wines, Cheedikada Bandaru Demudu Naidu, S/o.Raju Naidu, R/o.Cheedikada, Visakhapatnam District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Special Chief Secretary Revenue (Excise-II) Department Government of Andhra pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Proh.& Excise Govt.of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Excise Superintendent Prohibition & Excise, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.184 dt.7-2-2005 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Excise-II) Department as unconstitutional illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to consider renewal of the existing licencess in accordance with law, and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2654 of 2005 Between: 1 M/s. Sri Balaji Wines, rep.by its prop.K.Venkatesh, S/o.Chenchaiah, R/o.Military Colony, Nellore, Nellore Dist. (IL-24 Licence No.172). 2 M/s.Om Shakthi Wines, rep.by its prop. S.Vijay Kumar, S/o.Prasad Rao, R/o.Podalakur Road, Nellore, Nellore District. (IL-24 Licence No.). AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II)Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Guntur, Guntur District. 4 Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Guntur, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring G.O.Ms.no.184, dated 7-2-2005 issued by the Government of Andhra pradesh, Revenue (Excise-II) Department as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to consider renewal of the existing licensees in accordance with law, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.T.NAGARJUNA REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2658 of 2005 Between: 1 G. Atcham Naidu, S/o. Appala Naidu, Licensee of Durga Devi Wines, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 19/98-99. 2 Salapur Venkateswar Rao, S/o. Chinna Appala naidu, Licensee of Durga Wines, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 18/98-99. 3 G. Ammaji, W/o. Atcham Naidu, Licensee of vinayaka Wines, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 478/98-99. 4 Gorle Umamaheshwar Rao, S/o. Appala Naidu, Licensee of Venkateswara Wines, Vangali, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 174/98-99. 5 Nagulapalli Suryalingam, S/o. Kondayya, Licensee of Sri Surya Teja Wines, D.No. 370, Ammulapalem, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 57/98-99. 6 Nekkala Appala Naidu, S/o. Sanyasayya, Licensee of M/s. Naidu Wines, Gullepalli, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No.

554/98-99. 7 Gandhi narayana Babu, S/o. Simhachalam, Licensee of Friends Wines, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 191/98-99. 8 Villuri Appala Naidu, S/o. Sriramulu, Licensee of Sri Gayathri Wines, Mallunaidupalem, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 413/98-99. 9 G. Demudu, S/o. Ramu Naidu, Licensee of Vijaya Wines, Mogalipuram SabbavaramMandal, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 670/98-99. 10 Sabbavarpu Suryanarayana, S/o. Polipali, Licensee of Sri Lakshmi Wines, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 11 Pamarthi Ami Raju, S/o. Seshagiri Rao, Licensee of Rama Wines, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 424/98-99. 12 S. Narayana Murthy, S/o. Pydam Naidu, Licensee of Sri Sri Wines, Aripaka, SabbavaramMandal , Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No. 172/98-99. 13 S. Mutyalu Naidu, S/o. Pydam Naidu, Licensee of Sri Sri Wines, Anthakapalli SabbavaramMandal, Visakhapatnam District Bearing Licence No.

188/98-99. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andrha pradesh, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Secretarit, Hyderabad Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise superintendent, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 4 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District., Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring illegal and arbitrary and consequently set-aside the Notification No.18 dated 11-2-2005 issued by the 3rd respondent and pass such other order or orders the G.O.Ms.No. 184 dated 7-2-2005 as COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: M/S.C.KODANDA RAM COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2713 of 2005 Between: M/s.

Aparna Wines, D.No. 7/99, Patha Varadaiahpalem Road, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, Rep. by its owner J. Mohan Rao S/o. Bathaiah. AND ... PETITIONER 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibtion & Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Prohibtion & Excise, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No. 184 dt. 7-2-2005 as arbitary, illegal, violative of Article 14,21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr.A.Chandraiah Naidu COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2728 of 2005 Between: 1 M/s. Ravi Wines, Kundurpi, Ananthapur District, rep by its Proprietor, Sri Y. Venkata Ramana, S/o. Sri Y. Thimmappa, aged about 45 years, R/o. Vidyanagar, Kalyandurg, Anantapur District. 2 N.A.S. Wines, Bommanahal, Ananthapur District, Rep by its Propretor, Sri E. Vijaya Kumar Gowd, S/o. Sri E. Ramanjaneyulu, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Thimmapuram, Kambadur Mandal, Anantapur District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Anantapur, Anantapur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the G.O.Ms.No.

184 dated 7-2-2005 as illegal in favour of third parties pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No. 184 dated 7-2-2005. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr.GOLLA SESHADRI COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2749 of 2005 Between: 1 A.Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Anjaneyulu, Gayathri Wines, D.No.5-17, Martoor, Prakasam Dist. 2 K.Venkatarayudu, s/o.Krishnaiah, Ganapathi Wines, D.No.15-136/5/2, Addanki, Prakasam Dist. 3 A.Rajendra Prasad, S/o.Thandava Krishnaiah, Mitra Wines, Anantavaram, Ongole, Praksam Dist. 4 B.Mohan Rao, S/o.Ramaiah, Mohan Wines, D.No.8-56, Parchur, Prakasam Dist. 5 A.Yella Reddy, S/o.Meera Reddy, Venkateswara Wines, D.No.1/98, Chandavaram, Ongole, Praksam Dist., 6 Shaik Musamiya, S/o.Isamiya, Andhra Wines, D.No.10/187, Donakonda, Prakasam Dist. 7 Shaik Dayali, S/o.Masthan, K.Vinayaka Wines, Donakonda, Praksam Dist. 8 B.Venkatachalapathi Rao, S/o.Venkata Subba Rao, Andhra Wines, D.No.1-63, Kurchedu, Prakasam Dist.

9 M.Malakonda Reddy, S/o.Malakonda Reddy, Kokila Wines, Main Road, Chintalapalem, Prakasam Dist. 10 M.Venkata Suri Babu, S/o.Aswadha Narayana, Jabili Wines, D.No.8/69, Kanigiri, Prakasam Dist. 11 B.Venkata Narayana, S/o.Malakondaiah, New Apsara Wines, D.No.5-1(a), Kanigiri, Prakasam Dist. 12 M.Dayakar Reddy, S/o.Papi Reddy, Amaranath Wines, D.No.7-220, Kanigiri, Prakasam Dist. 13 M.Bala Hanumanthu, S/o.Anjaiah, 42 Sri Sainath Wines, D.No.8-166, Kanigir, Prakasam Dist. 14 P.Ramesh, S/o.Pitchaiah, Sri Lakshmi Wines, D.No.7/233, Kanigir, Prakasam Dist. 15 M.Malakonda Reddy, S/o.Malakonda Reddy, Sri Vijaya Wines, D.No.2/203, Kanigir, Prakasam Dist. 16 A.Brahmaiah, S/o.Tirupalu, Sri Venkateswara Wines, Main Road, Kanigir, Prakasam Dist. 17 Shaik Ahmed Basha, S/o.Khajawali, Vijayalakshmi Wines, D.No.9-412, Kanigir, Prakasam Dist. 18 S.Mohan Reddy, S/o.Venkataiah, Jyothi Wines, D.No.7/13, Kanigir, Prakasam Dist.

19 Sk.Ahmed, S/o.Lal Saheb, M/s.Srirama Brandy Shop, Sri Dattasai Towers, Lawyer pet, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 20 B.V.Subba Rao, S/o.Lakshmaiah, M/s.Kanipaka Vinayaka Wines, Nellore Bus Stand, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 21 Sk.Miravali, S/o.Hussain Saheb, M/s.Kanipaka VinayakaWines, Medarametla, Prakasam Dist. 22 K.Sudhir Babu, S/o.Nageswara Rao, M/s.Ramathirtham, Chimakurthy (M), Prakasam Dist. 23 Kulwant Singh Mehra, S/o.Swarna Singh Mehra, M/s.Kalyani Wines, Gullapalem, Maddipadu (M),Prakasam Dist. 24 M.Narasimha, S/o.Hanumantha Rao, M/s.Sri Venkateswara Wines, Maddipadu (M), Prakasam Dist. 25 P.Prasad, S/o.Malakondaiah, M/s.Srinivasa Wines, Kurnool Road, Near Vijaya Co., Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 26 V.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Ramchandraiah, M/s.Sri Venkatramana Wines, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 27 M.Rajendra Kumar, S/o.Nagaraju, M/s.Hanuman Wines, Srinivasa Sridevi Theatres Road, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 28 M.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Malyadri Naidu, M/s.Sri Venkateswara Wines, RTC Depot, Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam Dist.

29 Alla Venkataswami, S/o.Pitchaiah, M/s.Bhavani Wines, Opp: RTC Depot, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 30 V.Srimannarayana, S/o.Chenchuramaiah, M/s.Jyothi Wines, Nellore Bus Stand, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 31 G.Suresh, M/s.SriSai Hanuman Wines, Bye Pass Centre, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 32 Y.Nageswara Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, M/s.Vengamamba Wines, Palakendram Centre, Pernamitta, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 33 K.Sudhakar, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Amrutha Wines, Ulchi, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 34 G.Venkat Rao, S/o.Rangaiah, M/s.Sri Ganapathi Wines, Yerrajarla, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 35 P.Krishna Murthy, S/o.Chinthaiah, M/s.Sri Raja Rajeswari Wines, M Nidamaluru, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 36 G.Hari, S/o.. Narasimham, M/s.Laxmi Narasimha Wines, Konjedu, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 37 P.Chinthaiah, S/o.Krishna Murthy, M/s.Laxmi Tirupathamma Wines, IOC Centre, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 38 B.Chandrababu, S/o.Kotaiah, Dalphin Wines, Nellore Bus Stand, Ongole.

39 M.Venkatrao, S/o.Krishna Murthy, M/s.Suresh Wines, Railway Station Centre, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 40 J.Brahmaiah, S/o.Narayana, M/s.Tirumala Wines, Addanki Bus Stand Centre, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 41 M.Rajendra Prasad, S/o.Kondal Rao, M/s.Sri Kanakamahalakshmi Wines, K.P.Bus Stand, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 42 M.Annapurna, W/o.Venkat Rao, M/s.Sri Venkateswara Wines, Kadavakuduru, Chinna Ganzam Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 43 B.Haribabu, S/o.Ramalingaiah, M/s.Prakash Wines, Nav Bharat Theatre Centre, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 44 K.Rambabu, S/o.Papa Rao, M/s.K.P.Wines, Miryalapalem Centre, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 45 P.V.Krishna Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana, M/s.S.V.S.Wines, Edugundlapadu, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 46 J.Pulla Reddi, S/o.Yella Reddi, M/s.Palnadu Wines, Gullapalli, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 47 M.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Chenchaiah, M/s.Sri Sai Ganga Wines, Yellampalli, MaddipaduMandal, Prakasam Dist.

48 L.N.S.Bose, S/o.Subbaiah, M/s.Srirama Wines, Addanki Bus Stand Centre, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 49 G.Srihari, S/o.Venkata Narayana, M/s.Teja Wines, Market Centre, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 50 M.Veeraiah Chowdary, S/o.Satyanarayana, M/s.Balaji Wines, Santhanuthalapadu, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 51 G.Sanjay, S/o.Nagaraja Naidu, M/s.Teja Wines, Timmayapalem, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 52 K.Anji Babu, S/o.K.Venkataswami, M/s.Teja Wines, Ammanabrole, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 53 Ch.Veeraiah Chowdary, S/o.Venkateswarlu, M/s.Teja Wines, Karavadi, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 54 N.Prasada Rao, S/o.Pada Malakondaiah, M/s.Kokila Wines, Peda Pavani, Linga Samudram Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 55 M.Venkatrao, S/o.Yelamandaiah, M/s.Sri Venkateswara Wines, Linga Samudram (M), Prakasam Dist. 56 G.Usharani, W/o.Veeraiah, M/s.Sri Sai Wines, S.N.Padu (M), Prakasam Dist. 57 M.Anjaneyulu, S/o.Subbarayudu, M/s.Kalyani Wines, N.G.Padu, N.G.Padu (M), Prakasam Dist.

58 M.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Ramana Reddy. M/s.Sri Sai Wines, Pernamitta, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 59 M.Ramana, S/o.Peda Venkata Subba Reddy, M/s.Sairam Wines, S.N.Padu, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 60 P.Krishna Reddi, S/o.Venkat Reddy, M/s.Raja Rajeswari Wines, Chimakurthy, Chimakurthy (M), Prakasam Dist. AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The Govt.of A.P., Revenue (Excise-II) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.991, Revenue consequential G.O.Ms.No.184, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dated 7-2-2005 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners herein under Artiacles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also having the effect of being contrary to the Directive Principles of State Policy apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the A.P.Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 and for consequential (Excise-II) Department, dated 4-12-2004 and direction to the Respondents to consider the case the petitioners herein for renewal of our IL 24-B Licences in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Mr.M.Brahma Reddy COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2750 of 2005 Between: 1 P.V.Dharmalingam, S/o Venkatesa Mudali, 3/1-A, Pudupeta, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor district. 2 K.Velmurugan, S/o Subrahmanya Mudali, 10/153, Nagalapuram Road, Nagari, Chittoor District. 3 E.Ekambara Reddy, S/o Munaswamy Reddy, 1-1/8, Ekambara Kuppam, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 M.Sulthan, S/o Md.Mohideen, D.No.53/11 Nagalapuram Road, Nagari, Chittoor District. 5 C.S.Dhananjayan, S/o Subrahmanyam Mudali, D.No.7/189 Prakasam Road, Nagari, Chittoor District. 6 G.Rajasekhar, S/o Venkataratnam Naidu, D.No.8-208.A Prakasam Road, Nagari, Chittoor District. 7 E.M.Dandapani, S/o A.J.Manikyam, D.No.6-92 Chintalapatteda, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District. 8 P.Mohan, S/o Boojinaidu, D.No.10/118, Pallipatt Road, Nagari, Chittoor District. 9 A.Lokanatham, S/o Natarajan, Tadukupeta, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District.

10 A.Natarajan, S/o Subrahmanyam Naidu,13, Girinaidu complex, Nindra, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District. 11 M.N.Mohan, S/o Natesa Mudali, D.No.1-276, K.V.R.Pet, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District. 12 C.E.Varadappan, S/o C.N.Elumalai, D.No.3/74, Pudupeta, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District. 13 A.Ashokan, S/o Annamalai Mudali, D.No.11/48, Nagalapuram Road, Nagari, Chittoor District. 14 G.Ranganathan, S/o Govindawami, D.No.2-5/1, Pudupeta, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District. 15 A.V.Subrahmanyam S/o Varadppa Mudali, D.No.3-93, Satrawada, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District. 16 R.Kesavulu Naidu, S/o Srinivasulu Naidu, Prakasam Road, Nagari, Chittoor District. 17 C.A.Shanmugam, S/o Adimulam Naidu, D.No.1-4A, Ekambarakuppam, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District. 18 K.Ramesh, S/o Kannai Naidu, D.No.11/3, Prakasam Road, Nagari, Chittoor District. 19 T.Devarajulu, S/o Nagaiah, D.No.2-460, Taduku R.S., Vadamala, Chittoor District.

20 P.Chandraiah, S/o Subrahmanyam, D.No.192-A, Puttur Village and Mandal Chittoor District. 21 D.Umapathi, S/o Guruswamy, D.No.4-56, Vadamalapeta Village &Mandal, Chittoor District. 22 P.Mangaiah Naidu S/o Errappa Naidu D.No.5-80/3, Vadamalapeta Village & Mandal, Chittoor District. 23 D.Rama Moorthy, S/o Subbarayalu Naidu, Aruru Village, Satyaveedu Mandal, Chittoor District. 24 Y.Damodara Reddy S/o Subba Reddy Vampalli Village, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. 25 T.Paradesaiah, S/o Gangaiah, Dasukuppam Village, Satyaveedu, chittoor District. 26 K.Pratap Reddy, S/o Sundararami Reddy, Dasukuppam Village, Satyaveedu Mandal, Chittoor District. 27 C.Udaya Kumar S/o Late Venkata raju, Satyaveedu Village & Town, Chittoor District. 28 B.Lokaiah, S/o Venkata Reddy, Dasukuppam village, Satyaveedu Mandal, Chittoor District. 29 K.Ramachandra reddy S/o Subba Reddy, Dasukuppam Village and Town, SatyaveeduRoad, Chittoor District.

AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh , Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition &Excise, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, chittoor, Chittoor District. 4 The District Collector, Chittoor District , Chittoor. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ, order o direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.184 Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dt. 07/02/2005 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and consequently set aside the G.O.Ms.No.184 Revenue (Excise-II) Department dt. 07-02-2005 and the consequential notification issued by the 3rd respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2759 of 2005 Between: 1 Mandi Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o. Anki Reddy, Licensee of Tirumala Wines, Utukuru syadapuram Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Kanda Masthanaiah, S/o. Masthanaiah, Licensee of Sri Sai Sreenivasa Wines, Viruvoor, Podalakur Mandal, Nellore District. R/o. Thatiparthi (Village), Podalakur Mandal, Nellore Distri 3 Neelam Srinvasulu Reddy, S/o. Tirupal Reddy, Licensee of Sri Sai Ram Wines, Kalichedu, Syadapuram Mandal, Nellore District. R/o. Thatiparthi (Village), Podalakur Mandal, Nellore Distri AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Excise-Ii) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderbad. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, government of Andrha Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS under Article 226 of G.O.Ms.No.184, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 7-2-2005 and the consequential ntofication dated 11-2-2005 issued bythe 3rd respondent is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisidiction and consequentlyset aside the same and pass such other order or orders in the itnerest of justice. the Constittution of India declaring COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.CH.C.KRISHNA REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2760 of 2005 Between: 1 A. Kishan Reddy, S/o.

Raghava Reddy, IL - 24, licensee of M/S. Sree Lakshmi Wines, Parkal, District Warangal. 2 B. Mondaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 &, 24 B Licensee of M/S. Kumkumeshwara Wines, Parkal, District Warangal. 3 P. Ashok Kumar, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 &, 24 B Licensee of M/S. Jagadhamba Wines Parkal, District Warangal. 4 N. Ravi Babu, S/o. Yadhagiri, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 Licensee of M/S. Sunny Wines Parkal, District Warangal. 5 K. Rajeshwar Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 &, 24 B Licensee of M/S. Haritha Wines Parkal, District Warangal. 6 K. Raghupathi Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy,R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 &, 24 B Licensee of M/S. Venkatramana Wines Parkal, District Warangal. 7 S.V. Nagesh, S/o. Narayana, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 &, 24 B Licensee of M/S. Hindu Wines Parkal, District Warangal. 8 K. Srinivas, S/o. Rajanna, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 &, 24 B Licensee of M/S. Shivamahesh Wines Parkal, District Warangal.

9 M.A. Raheem, S/o. Ankoos, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24, Licensee of M/S. Parkal Wines Parkal, District Warangal. 10 K. Rajendar Reddy, S/o. K. Venkat Reddy, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 Licensee of M/S. Venkateshwara Wines Parkal, District Warangal. 11 D. Shekar, S/o. D. Narsaiah, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 &, 24 B Licensee of M/S. Krishna Wines Parkal, District Warangal. 12 P. Rajaiah, S/o. Erraiah, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 &, 24 B Licensee of M/S. Raja Rajeshwari Wines Parkal, District Warangal. 13 K. Raja Kumar, S/o. Narayana, R/o. Parkal, IL - 24 &, 24 B Licensee of M/S. Shiva Parameshwari Wines Bhupalpally, District Warangal. 14 K. Babu Rao, S/o. Sammaiah, R/o. Regonda, IL - 24 Licensee of M/S. Lakshminarasimha Wines Regonda, District Warangal. 15 G. Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Raj Reddy, R/o. Shyampet, IL 24 Licensee of M/S. Ravi Teja Wines Shyampet, District Warangal. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderbad.

2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Warangal District, Warangal. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, declaring the G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 7/2/2005 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to issue license in favour of 3rd parties pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 184 dt. 7/2/2005 and to pass such other orderor orders COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.A.RAVINDER COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2762 of 2005 Between: 1 M/s. Sri Rama Wines, D.No. 29-1-6, Nagadevi Theatre Road, Rajamundry, E.G. District, rep by its Licensee M. Antharvedi Reddy 2 M/s. Indraja Wines, D.No.

70-3-69, Lalacheruvu, Rajamundry, E.G. District, rep by its Licensee K.V.K. Reddy 3 M/s. Vasundhara Wines, D.No. 17-16-1, Seethampeta, Rajamundry, E.G. District, rep by its Licensee Nallamilli Veer Reddy 4 M/s. G.N. Murthy Brandy Shop, D.No. 14-102, Moranpudi Road, Rajamundry, E.G. District, rep by its Licensee G.N.V.L. Narayana. 5 M/s. G.N. Murthy Brandy Shop, D.No. 10-1-1, Fort gate, Rajamundry, E.G. District, rep by its Licensee G. Sree Rama Murthy AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada Division at Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent contained in G.O.Ms.No.

184 Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dated 07-02-2005 purporting to avoid the renewal of the existing IL 24 licenses and proceedings to issue a licensees for the 7,500 IL-24 shops in the State, arbitrary, discrimanatory and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to continue to renew the IL-24 licenses of the petitioners for the excise year to 2005-06 onwards. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.S.SIVA REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2771 of 2005 Between: 1 Menaka Wines(IL.24) Opp.to Ramakrishna Theatre, Rajahmundry., E.G.Disrict, rep.by its Licencee Holder M.Ramakrishna Reddy S/o Adireddy Hindu, aged, 55 years, Business, H.No.36-25-26, Innispet, Rajahmundry, E.G.district. 2 Menaka Wines(IL.24) D.No.6-5-74, T.Nagar Rajahmundry, E.G.district Licencee No.52/2003-2004 rep.by its Licencee Holder Smt. M.Krishnaveni W/o M.R.K.Reddy, H.No.36-25-26, Innispet, Rajahmundry, E.G.district. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Goverment of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary, Excise Department Secreatriat, Hyderabad.

2 The Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Kakinada, E.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ, order or direction, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the G.O.Ms.No.184, dt. 07/02/2005 issued by the 1st respodnent herein as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to issue licences in favour of third parties pursuant to the G.OMs.No.184 dt. 07/02/2005 and to the pass such other order or ordes as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circusmtances of the case. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.K.RAMESH BABU COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2778 of 2005 Between: 1 C.Ramachandraiah S/o C.Muniswamy, R/o H.No.18-1-389, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupathi 2 P.Laxmi Prasad s/o P.Srinivasulu Naidu R/o 19-9-1/4 Kakatiyanagar, Tirupathi 3 E.Umapathi Naidu S/o E.Ramaswamy Naidu R/o 14-199 Padmavathipuram, Tirupathi 4 S.Sudhakara Reddy S/o S.Munikrishna Reddy R/o Gajulamandyam, Renigunta Mandal, chittoor District 5 P.Lokesh S/o P.Gopal, R/o 10-2-436/A, Kotakommala Srtreet, Tirupathi 6 M.Prasad S/o M.Ranganatha Naidu C/o Sreevidya Niketan Educational Institutions, Sri Sainath Nagar, A.Rangampet, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

7 M.Venkataiah Naidu S/o M.Narayana Swamy, R/o Naravaripalli village, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District 8 S.Ghouse Peera S/o S.Abdullah Saheb R/o 11-94, S.V.Nagar M.R Palli, chittoor District. 9 N.Rajagopal Chetty S/o N.Narayana Chetty 19/3/11 B, Srinivasapuram, Old Renigunta Road, Tirupathi 10 N.Janaki Ram S/o N.RajagopalChetty, R/o 6-1-70/2A K.T Road, Tirupathi 11 S.Khader Basha S/o S.Mahaboob Peera 2-2-388/1, S.V.University Road, Backside Indane Gas, Tirupathi 12 L.V.Prasanth Kondeti S/o K.Chandra Sekhar R/o No.27 TUDA Plots, Royalnagar, R.C.Road Tirupathi. 13 C.Eswaraiah S/o C.Gopalaiah R/o 19-472, Renigunta, chittoor District. 14 J.Ramprasad Reddy S/o J.Arjun Reddy C/o Menaka Wines Gajulamandyam, Chittoor District. 15 P.Venkatamuni Reddy S/o P.Venkata Reddy, C/o Andhra Wines, Tanapalli Village, Kuntrapakam Post, Tirupathi Rural 16 J.Chandra Sekhar Reddy S/o J.Ratnam Reddy R/o 13/6/600-44 D Peddakapu Layout, Tirupathi 17 N.Raghupathi S/o N.Chengaiah Chetty R/o 10-14-587, Mosque Road, Tirupathi 18 S.Bhaskar S/o C.Ramakrishna Naidu.

R/o 18-1-637, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupathi. 19 P.Ram Mohan Reddy S/o P.Rami reddy C/o Leela Mahal Junction, Tirupathi, 20 P.Sankar S/o P.Gopal, 10-12-436, K.K.Street, Tirupathi. 21 P.Joythi Narayana S/o P.Govinda Nair, C/o Jyothi Wines, 1-56, Post office Street Renigunta, Chittoor District. 22 C.Niranjani W/o C.Nagaraj ReddY, R/o 168, TP Area, Tirupathi. 23 A.Muni Venkata Rami Reddy S/o A.Munihara Reddy Kummarapalli Village & Post Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. 24 K.Jayasankar S/o K.V.Padmanabham, Gunda Varayunimitta Village, Madhamala Post, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District. 25 K.Bhasker Reddy S/o K.Bhima Reddy 9-47, Amaravathy Nagar, M.R.Palli, Triupathi-2 26 I.Ramanamma W/o late I.Venkateswarlu 1-62, south Post office Street, Renigunta, Chittoor Dist. 27 S.Jayakumar S/o S.Sriramulu Chetty, 10-3-189, 1st Floor, KK Street, Chittoor 28 V.Guru Prasad S/o V.Ramaiah, R/o D.No.109, P.K.Street, Tirupathi.

29 Y.Doraswamy S/o Y.Venkatrayalu Naidu, D.No.3-78, Bazar Street, Renigunta, Chittoor District. 30 T.Ram Prasad S/o T.Subbarayulu, D.No.1061, Bommanagunta near Jyothi Talkies Area, Tirupathi. 31 M.Reddappa Naidu S/o M.Venkata Subbaiah Naidu, 1-10, Srinivasa Puram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi. 32 G.Sambasiva Reddy S/o G.Gurava Reddy 2-46, Tirupathi to Srikalahasthi Road, Yerpedu, Chittoor District 33 N.Madhusudhana Rao s/o N.Papa Rao, 1-80-2, Near Railway Station Road, Renigunta, Chittoor District. 34 V.Vasudeva Reddy S/o V.Krishna Reddy D.No.14-254, Tirupathi Road, Renigunta, Chittoor District. 35 S.Amarnath S/o G.Ramachandra Naidu, 19-19A, D.R.Mahal Road, Near Second Choultry, Tirupathi. 36 P.Kiran Kumar S/o P.Rama Moorthy, 8-436, Mangalam Village, Tirupathi, 37 K.Ramesh S/o K.M.Subramanyam, D.No.9-49A, Karakambadi Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. 38 K.M.Subramanyam S/o K.Muniswamy, 1-72-1, Railway Booking Office Road, Renigunta, Chittoor District.

39 K.Ravi S/o K.Radhakrishnaiah 77/103, Upparapalem, Tirupathi, Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. 40 P.Rami Reddy S/o P.Subba Reddy, D.No.324, Gandhi Road, Tirupathi. 41 R.Sudarsan S/o R.Venkatappa, Kalangil village, KVB Puram Mandal, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District 42 L.Madhu Babu S/o Manohar Babu D.No.16/5 & 165 (1) Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District. 43 M.Subramanyam S/o M.Sankaraiah D.No.1-671, Kranthi Street, Vadamalapeta, Chittoor District. 44 V.Dhanajaya Reddy S/o Kamalanabha Reddy R Mallavaram Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor Dist. 45 N.Murali Mohan S/o N.Jayarama Naidu, C/o M/s Kalyani Wines, Municipal Market, Tirupathi 46 B.Giri Babu S/o B.Venkata Swamy Naidu 19-6-50/C/2, STV Nagar, Tirupathi 47 B.Vasantha W/o B.Giribabau D.No.20-1-440 A, Korlagunta Maseedh Street, Tirupathi 48 O.M.Mohan Babu S/o O.M.Radhakrishna, 20-3-678 D, Korlagunta Byepass Road, Tirupathi, ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue (Excise-II) Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep.by its Special Chief Secretary to Government 2 The Commissioner, Prohibiton and Excise, Hyderabad.

3 The Prohibition &Excise Superintendent, Chittoor District. 4 The District Collector, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or Direction, declaring the G.O.Ms.No.184 dt. 07/02/2005 on the file of first respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the consequential notification No.18/2005 issued by the third respondent dt 11/02/2005; Award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2779 of 2005 Between: M/s. Sripriya Wines, Addanki Rep. by its Licence Holder M. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. Pedda Anji Reddy, Hindu, aged 40 years, R/o.

Addanki, Prakasam District. AND ... PETITIONER 1 The Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) Secretariat, Hyderabad-A.P. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Prakasham at Ongole. 4 The Excise Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise, Prakasham District at Ongole. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that G.O.Ms. No. 184 dt. 7-2-2005 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue (Excise II) Department as unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to consider renewal of the existing licence in accordance with law, and pass such other order or orders.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: SMT.A.GAYATRI REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2780 of 2005 Between: 1 Sri P. Ajay Kumar, S/o. Venkat Rao, R/o. Dharmaram, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimangar District. 2 Sri S. Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Narsing Rao, R/o. Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District. AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Karimnagar District. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Chief Secretary, Revenue /(Excise-II) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS:- (a) declaring that portion of impugned G.O.Ms.No.206 dt. 10-02-2005 amending rule 3(h) rule 69 & 70 of the AP Indian Liquor & Foreign Liquor Rules 1970 as void being contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and consequently to declre the procedure adopted for grant of IL-24B Licence i.e., permit rooms tot hose licensee holders who have IL-24 Licence in a town which has more than 5000 to 25,000 population, as bad and illegal, (b) to declare the impugned G.O.No.184 dt.

07- 02-2005 as invalid, discriminatory and ultravires the operation of the Indian Liquor and Foreing Liquor Rules, 1970, and consequently, and to declare that the existing IL 24 Licences with permission to run permit Rooms (On Premises Consumption) with a population above 25,000 be granted on par facility of automatic renewal vested by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.185 dt. 07-02-2005 to other IL 17(on Premises) licenses, and to pass necessary orders. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR.ERANKI PHANI KUMAR COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2785 of 2005 Between: 1 CHSR Wines, Sathupally, rep. by its Chintalapati, Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkateswar Rao, R/o. Sathupally, Khammam District. 2 BABU Wines, Sathupally, rep. by its Chadalawada Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Kesava Rao, R/o. Sathupally, Khammam District. 3 Jyothi Wines, Sathupally, rep. by its N. Krishna Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Sathupally, Khammam District.

4 SRI GANESH WINES, Venneched, rep. By Ch.Satyanarayana, S/o. Kotaiah, Chennuru, Khammam District. 5 SREE BALAJI WINES, Sathupally, rep. by its T.V. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, R/o. Sathupally, Khammam District. 6 Sree Krishna Wines, Penubally, rep. by its N. Radha Krishna, S/o. Narayana, R/o. Karaigudem, Khammam District. 7 SRI SAI RAM WINES, Penubally, rep. by its Nalla Bose, S/o. Ballaramaiah, R/o. Khammam, Khammam District. 8 SRI VENKATESWARA WINES, Khan Khanpet, rep. by P. Prasad Reddy, S/o. Raghav Reddy, R/o. Narayanpuram, Khammam District. 9 BALAJI WINES, sathupally, rep. by its k. narender reddy, S/o. Nage Reddy, R/o. Kothuru, Khammam District. 10 SAI RAM WINES, GANAGARAM, SAthupally Mandal, rep. by R. Nagender Rao, R/o. Narayan PUram, Khammam District. 11 SAI BRANDY SHOP, Khan Khanpet, rep. By M.Sesha, Reddy, S/o. Pappi Reddy, R/o.Narayanapuram, Khammam District. 12 SRI SRINIVASA WINES, Aswaraopet, rep. by its T. Vijayakumar Reddy, S/o.Vankat Reddy, R/o.

Aswaraopet, Khammam District. 13 Lakshmi Ganapathi Wines, Aswaraopet, rep. by its J. Brahama Rao, S/o. Ranga Rao, R/o. Aswaraopet, Khammam District. 14 SRI SAI WINES, Patvarigudem, rep. by its K. SRINIVASA RAO, S/o. Late Rama Rao, R/o. Aswaraopet, Khammam district. AND ... PETITIONERS 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Revenue ( Excise-II) Dept., Secretariat, Hyd. 2 The Commissioner, Proh & Excise, Govt of A.P., MJ Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Excise, Khammam, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring G.O.Ms.No. 184, Revenue ( Excise-II) Department, dt. 07.02.2005, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Consitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:MR.LINGESWARA RAO PANDRANKI COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 2787 of 2005 Between: 1 S.Anwar, S/o Tippu Saheb, M/S Star Wines, M.B.T.Road, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 2 G.Srinivasulu, S/o Challamaiah, M/s Ganapathi Wines, M.B.T.Road, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 3 E.Munirathanam, S/o E.Chengappa, M/s Deepika Wines, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 4 S.Narasimhulu Chetty, S/o Subbaiah Chetty, M/S Balaji Wines, Gangavaram, Chittoor District. 5 B.Pandian, S/o A.K.Krishnamurthy, M/s Lucky Wines, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 6 P.Doraswamy Naidu, S/o Krishnama Naidu M/s Sai Likitha Wines, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 7 K.Seshagiri, S/o Subba Naidu M/s Gayathri Wines, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 8 A.Damodara Reddy S/o A.Sriramulu Reddy, M/s Damu Wines, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 9 A.Ramachandraiah S/o Chengappa, M/s Sri Vinayaka Wines, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 10 K.Venugopal, S/o Ramaiah M/s Vigneswara Wines, Gangavaram, Palamaner, Chittoor District. ... PETITIONERS AND

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue (Excise.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Special Cheif Secretary to Government. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibiton and Excise, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Chittoor District. 4 The District Collector, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the G.O.Ms.No.184, dated 7.02.2005 as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the consequential Notification No.18/2005 issued by the 3rd respondent dated 11.2.2005. WRIT PETITION NO : 2793 of 2005 Between: 1 Veera Brahmendra Wines, Licence No. 597, Vempakampalli, V. Krishna Rao, S/o. China Chennaiah, 24 Years, Proprietor of Veera Brahmendra Wines, Vempakam Palli, P.C. Palle Mandal, Kanigiri Circle, Prakasam District.

The manufacture, sale, transport and storage of intoxicants in the State of A.P. is governed by the provisions of A.P. Excise Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. Apart from various regulatory measures, the Act provides for grant of different kinds of licences, in such matters. The Rules prescribe the procedure for grant of licences, to enable the licensees to undertake trade in different kinds of intoxicants. To the extent it is relevant to the present context, it would be sufficient to refer to three categories of licences. IL-17 is a licence, which is granted for establishing a bar, and to supply liquor therein. Licence, IL-24, is for retail sale of liquor, in sealed bottles. Consumption of liquor in the premises of such shops is not permitted. In the recent past, a new category of licence viz., IL-24(B), was provided for, to enable an IL-24 licensee to maintain a place known as ‘permit room’, where the customers can consume liquor purchased in that shop. The licences are granted or renewed for a period of one year, commencing from 1st April, of a year, and ending with 31st March, of the succeeding year.

Till the Excise year 1997-98, prohibition of intoxicants was in force in the State. From the Excise year 1998-99 onwards, the prohibition was relaxed and licences of various categories were being issued from time to time. Initially, grant of licences, particularly IL-24, was on the basis of applications. The shops were notified with reference to Districts and Mandals, and applications were invited. If the number of applications exceeded the number of notified shops, the licences were granted to the applicants, selected on the basis of drawal of lots. This procedure continued till the current excise year. Rule 26-A of the Rules, as it stood before 04-12-2004, provided for renewal of the existing licences, almost as a matter of course. Sub-rule(2) thereof was to the effect that, in case the application for renewal is not considered before the expiry of the licence period, the licensee shall be entitled to carry on the business, till he is communicated the decision, either granting or refusing the renewal. Through G.O.Ms.No.991, dated 04.12.2004, the Government amended the Rule 26-A, renewal of licences was made discretionary, and to depend upon the policy. The various provisos and sub-Section (2) of the Rule were omitted altogether.

The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.184, dated 07.02.2005, declaring its policy for the excise year 2004-05 in relation to IL-24 licences. The policy is to the effect that, no existing licence shall be renewed, and 7,500 IL-24 shops (as against the existing 6,800 shops) will be licensed. The selection of licensees, out of the applicants, is to be in accordance with Rule 31 of the Rules, which provides for drawal of lots. G.O.Ms.No.185 of the same date, was issued, enunciating the policy for grant of IL-17 licences. It provides for renewal of existing licences and continuation of the policy for the previous year, almost in all respects. Hitherto, bar licence used to be granted in places with population of 45,000 and above, and in the belt areas of two kilometers from the periphery of such places. Under the new policy, it is permissible to grant bar licence for places with population 25,000 and above.

Through G.O.Ms.No.206, the Government effected further amendments to the Rules. The amendments range from altering the definition of ‘off-licence’ in clause (3h), to addition of Rule 70, according finality to the opinion of the Commissioner in the matter of interpretation of the Rules. The concept of ‘permit rooms’ by issuing IL-24 (B) is retained, but the scope was expanded by providing for issuance of licences for places with population of 5,000/-, as against 10,000 under the earlier Rule. Rule 69 was substituted with a new provision. It entails the seizure of the quantity of liquor, that remains with the licensee, by the end of the Excise year, if he is not selected for the grant of licence for the succeeding year. Pleadings:

Petitioners contend that the amendments to the Rules as well as the change in the policy, which results in automatic cancellation of existing licences, is illegal, arbitrary and without any basis. According to them, when the Government has chosen to renew the existing IL-17 licences and to increase the number of IL-24 shops, there is absolutely no justification in not renewing the IL-24 licences. They plead that blanket refusal of renewals in respect of a particular category of licences smacks of arbitrariness and the reasons stated in the policy do not provide any valid basis. In short, their plea is that there is no nexus between classification undertaken by the respondents and the object sought to be achieved, in the matter of refusal to renew the licences.

The respondents filed a common counter affidavit. The relevant provisions of the Act and Rules are referred to and the working of the system for the past several years is depicted. Statistics, as regards the number of IL-24 shops, notified from the Excise Years 1998-98 to 2004-05 as well as the number of licensees, who did not seek renewal of licences are furnished. The contention of the respondents is that a substantial section of the existing IL-24 licensees have formed into a cartel and are not coming forward for renewal of substantial number of shops, thereby causing serious loss to the revenue of the State. It is alleged that the new policy is aimed at breaking the cartel and to ensure transparency in the matter of grant of licences. It is emphasized that IL-17 licences stand on a different footing and form a separate class and that there cannot be any comparison with IL-24 licences, in this regard. The Contentions:

Sri S.Ramchander Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, submits that except to do away with as many as 6,800 IL-24 licensees, G.O.Ms.No.184, does not enunciate any policy, worth its name. According to him, the term ‘cartel’ was utilized by the Government from time to time, only with a view to justify its actions, either to expand the number of shops or to bring about changes in the method of allotment. Learned counsel points out that the licence fee is fixed, candidates are selected on the basis of lots, supply of the liquor is exclusively through A.P. State Beverages Corporation, the price at which the liquor is to be sold is regulated, and under these circumstances, the question of the licensees forming into a cartel or causing any loss to the revenue, does not arise. He also submits that there is no rational basis, in according differential treatment to licensees of IL-24. He also submits that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary to Govt., Tamil Nadu v. K.Vinayagamurthy1, squarely applies to the facts of the case.

Sri M.R.K Chowdary, learned senior counsel submits that the decision as to renewal of existing licences has to be guided by the statutory roles and not by the administrative instructions. According to him, the Rules have been reversed in the instant case and even while the rule 26-A, that too, in its amended form provides for renewal, the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.184 totally shuts the door for renewal of IL-24 licences. He states that the policy must be subservient to the Rules and not vice versa.

Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, has referred to various provisions of the Rules as well as the forms of licences. He submits that nothing is discernible from G.O.Ms.No.184, as to the object sought to be achieved by the Government. Learned counsel submits that the three aspects contained in the preamble to G.O., viz., a) streamlining the sale and consumption of liquors, b) elimination of cartel in liquor trade; and, c) making the quality of liquor available to consumer at affordable prices, do not warrant the cancellation of existing licences, by refusing renewal. He urges that none of the three aspects have any bearing on the object, if any, sought to be achieved. He further submits that the necessity to refuse to renew the existing licence would have arisen, if the policy provided for reduction of the shops, or alteration of privilege fee, or method of selection. He urges that, when the number of shops is increased by 700, and the licence fee and selection procedure are not altered, there was no justification in denying refusal.

Sri E.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the some of the petitioners, has drawn the attention of this Court to the various amendments carried to the Rule through G.O.Ms.No.206 dated 10.02.2005. He states that by amending the definition of ‘off licence’ under Rule 3(h) and Rule 23(a) (xiii), to such an extent as to enable supply of liquor in sealed or capsuled bottles or “in any other manner”, the distinction between an IL-24 and IL-17 licence is virtually taken away and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for maintaining a distinction between those two categories of licences, in the matter of renewal. He also refers to the relevant provision relating to licence in IL- 24 (B) and states that it virtually blurs the distinction between a bar and a permit room. Learned counsel submits that the amended Rule 69(1) provides for seizure of the unsold liquor at the expiry of the licence period and such a measure would be confiscatory in nature, without there being any fault of the licensee. He contends that the sole supplier being the agency of the State, it ought to have taken return of the unsold quantity, than to seize as a confiscatory measure without paying any price to it. Learned counsel further submits that the newly added Rule 70, which adds finality to the opinion of the Commissioner, cannot be sustained in law.

Learned Advocate General had advanced extensive arguments. He has referred to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, as well as to the various stages, which they passed through, and evolved to the present form. He submits that no individual can claim any right in trade in intoxicants and other related substances, and that it is always in the discretion of the Government to evolve suitable policy, in such matters, from time to time. He contends that the experience over the past few years indicated that on account of formation of cartels by some of the existing IL–24 licensees, the State was subjected to loss, and the liquor was being sold at higher prices, in some places. He submits that the policy decision, not to renew the existing licences, is aimed at breaking the cartels, and to ensure transparency in the matter of selection of licensees and supply of liquor to the consumers. According to him, the whole trade is sought to be streamlined, by taking recourse to number of measures, and the policy decision of the Government does not suffer from the legal infirmity.

He contends that there is a clear distinction between the licences of IL–17, on the one hand, and IL–24, on the other hand, and the policy of the Government is based on a definite and discernable classification. He submits that the petitioners would also be entitled to submit their applications, and that it is not as if they are totally deprived of such an opportunity. He submits that the classification is not only based on rational criteria, but is also reasonable, and constitutes sufficient basis for the policy decision. According to the Learned Advocate General, the supply of liquor to all the licensees, in the state, is chanalised through A.P. Beverages Corporation, a Government of Andhra Pradesh undertaking, and the purchases, which hitherto were restricted from the manufacturers within the State, are being undertaken from the manufacturers from all over the country. He urges that the interference with the policy decision of the Government is very rare and exceptional circumstances, and that the same do not exist in the present case. He relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Amar Chandra v. Excise Collector, Tripura5; State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co.6; Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala7 and M/s Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., v. Delhi Administration8.

According to the learned Advocate General, the important factor that constituted the basis for the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu v. K.Vijayagamurthy (1 supra), was that even while the policy for the block period 2001-2004 was in operation, the Tamil Nadu Government altered it, in between, and that such circumstance does not exist in the present case. The Discussion: 1 9 . Trade in liquor has several unique features. It is not comparable to ordinary categories of trade, in respect of which, the citizens are conferred with a fundamental right, under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The same was never considered to be in the public interest, and in view of the directive principles of state policy, contained in Article 47 of the Constitution, the State is conceded the maximum latitude, in regulation of the trade in intoxicants. It ranged from total prohibition to liberal regulation. While testing the validity of the various legislations, or administrative actions, the High Courts and the Supreme Court, maintained a uniform view that no citizen has a fundamental right, to undertake trade in intoxicants. However, the measures adopted by the State from time to time, in relation to this activity are not taken away from the purview of judicial review by the Constitutional Courts. The State is granted the maximum liberty in formulating its policies. But the basis for such policies, declared by the State itself, is subject to judicial scrutiny. The measures, for implementation of such policies are also tested touchstone of reasonableness and fairness. The area of scrutiny in such matters, is limited to the one of discrimination and rationality.

In the State of Andhra Pradesh, prohibition existed till the excise year 1997-98. It was relaxed thereafter. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, different categories of licences are provided for, under the A.P. Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder. In the year 1998-99, 3211 IL-24 licences were granted. Few years thereafter, permissions were also accorded for opening the Bars. Whenever there existed more applications, than one, in respect of IL- 24 shops, the licensees are selected by drawal of lots, as provided for under Rule 31. There was phenomenal increase in number of IL–24 shops, year after year. By the year 2003-2004, it reached 7,609. There was marginal decline in the current excise year, and their number is about 6,800. The IL-24 licences, once granted, were being renewed, from time to time, in exercise of power under Rule 26-A. During the current excise year, namely 2004-2005, renewals were granted for few months, in view of certain developments, such as general elections, change of government etc. Such renewals were accorded in three phases, viz., March, July and September, 2004.

In continuity of the convention, to issue and pronounce the excise policy for the concerned year, the Government issued two orders namely, G.O.Ms.Nos.184 and 185, dated 07-02-2005. The first G.O., discloses the policy, in relation to IL-24, shops, and the other G.O., relates to IL-17, Bars. The important clauses in these policy statements read as under: “G.O.Ms.No.184: 1. The sale and consumption of liquor be made more streamlined. The necessary steps in this direction will be to effectively eliminate the cartels in liquor trade, throw open the trade to more competition and thus ensure availability of good quality liquor to the consumer at affordable prices.

2. The licenses of IL-24 (Retail Off Licenses) which are functioning during the year 2004- 05 in the State, which will expire on 31-03-2005, shall not be renewed for the year 2005-06.

3. For the year 2005-06, 7,500 (Seven thousand and Five hundred) IL-24 Retail shops will be licensed in the State. The shops may be located in areas where there is requirement”. “G.O.Ms.No.185: 1. The Licenses of IL-17 (Bar Licenses) which are functioning during 2004-05 in the State, which will expire on 31-03-2005 will be renewed for 2005-06 at the option of the Licensees.

2. The Policy with regard to grant of Bar Licenses (IL-17) in force during 2004-05, will continue for the year 2005-06. In addition, Bar Licenses will be granted in all places where the population is more than 25,000 and in the Belt areas of 2Kms of the periphery of such places”.

Rule 26-A of the Rules, which provides for the procedure for renewal of licences, was amended through G.O.Ms.No.991, dated 04-12-2004. Thereafter substantial amendments were carried through G.O.Ms.No.206, dated 10-02-2005. In this batch of writ petitions, the main challenge is to the policy, in relation to IL-24 shops as well as to the relevant amendments to the Rules. Reference to the policy, in relation to IL-17, is mostly by way of comparison.

Under the new policy, the State proposes to grant licences to 7,500 retail wine shops, as against the existing 6,800 shops. It may appear that the number of shops is increased. However, if the number of shops for the excise year 2003-04, namely, 7,609, is taken into account, the picture may not be so alarming. The basis, as spelt out in G.O.Ms.No.184, itself, for not renewing the existing IL-24 shops, is that the Government a. proposes to make the sale and consumption of liquor more streamlined; b. intends to eliminate cartels, and c. wants to throw open, the trade, to more competition.

These three steps is said to be to, “ensure availability of good quality liquor to the consumer at affordable prices”. Whether this object accords with the provisions of the Constitution, would be considered at a later part of the judgment.

There cannot be any plausible objection for the steps taken towards or aimed at streamlining the sale and consumption of liquor. If, however, one keeps in view, the directive contained in Article 47, of the Constitution of India, such streamlining is required to be, in a direction, to discourage consumption of intoxicants. Neither in the counter affidavit, nor during the course of arguments, the State has come forward to spell out the nature of streamlining. Further, it is not indicated as to how, the non- renewal of the existing licences, can result in streamlining the sale and consumption liquor. Much has been said about the cartels, in the counter affidavit. The respondents have formed an opinion that there is concerted effort on the part of the existing licensees, to cause loss to the revenue, and to act, detrimental to the interests of the Government and public. In the counter affidavit, the respondents explained as to how the cartels came into existence and how they operate; thus: “Whenever, the Government wished to establish additional shops with an intention to check the cartels by inducting fresh licenses, the traders re-grouped themselves and strived hard to nullify Government’s actions by forming into cartels and reducing the number of shops which is clear from the table.

Two more factors are attributed to the formation of cartels, viz., the action of some of the existing licensees in filing W.P.No.9367 of 2001 and batch, when the Government permitted creation of new shops through G.O.Ms.No.177, dated 08-03- 2001, and their filing W.P.No.21498 of 2003, questioning the booking of cases for violations of recommended maximum retail price, in selling the liquor. In both the instances, the cases ended in favour of the Government. The result, which the respondents expect, on account of refusal to renew the licences, is spelt out as under:

…When a new set of Licensees are in place after 1.4.2005, who have been granted licenses through a transparent method of selection, it is hoped that the existing equations in the trade would be erased and the trade will be thrown open to healthy competition. It is submitted that there is a direct nexus between the object sought to be achieved and the decision not to renew the existing licenses automatically…

. 2 7 . It is true that the intervention by the Courts, in policy matters, that too, in the business, in intoxicants, is very restricted. However, when the Government spells the reasons, in support of its decision, the Courts are entitled to examine the same, in arriving at a conclusion, as to whether the reasons so spelt out, would sustain the policy. The fact that a second opinion is possible on such policy matters, is no ground for the Court, to substitute its own opinion, for that of the Government. The evaluation of reasons, furnished by the Government, in support of policy, becomes necessary to verify, whether there exists any nexus between the action taken and object sought to be achieved. The action taken in the instant case is not to renew the licences, and the object sought to be achieved, is to throw open the trade, in liquor, to healthy competition.

It is not as if the respondents have brought about any new method of selection of licensees. Rule 31 of the Rules, prescribes that whenever their exists more number of applications, for any particular shop, the licensee shall be selected by drawal of lots. The same procedure continues, for the current excise year also. Three factors, which weighted with the respondents for forming an opinion as to existence of cartels. They a. some of the licensees did not opt for renewal of licences; b. order of the Government, to increase the number of shops, was challenged, and c. booking of cases, for violating the RMRP, were assailed before this Court.

As for the first reason, it needs to be noticed that the Rules clearly prohibit opening of more licences, than one, by an individual. Further, the licensee was selected on the basis of drawal, except where they were the only applicants. The supplies are from a Government agency, at a specified price. Each and every item so purchased is liable to be accounted for. The licence fee is fixed under the Rules. The reasons as to why an existing licensee did not seek renewal in the next year, cannot be uniform. In some cases, it may be on account of financial difficulties; in certain cases, it can be on account of losses, that may have been sustained by the licensee, and in yet other cases, it may be due to unhealthy competition. For instance, the number of shops at the beginning of the excise year 1998-99 was 3211. The Government established additional 3709 shops. This, naturally shakes the business equations, of the existing shops. 742 licences did not seek renewal for the next excise year. All such instances were attributed to cartels. It only discloses the effort of the excise officials, to keep their sole object of achieving the targets of sale of intoxicants, at any cost. At any rate, the refusal by an existing licence to seek renewal is not going to result in closure of that shop for ever. The respondents can grant licence to another person, in accordance with Rule 31.

Coming to the other reasons spelt out in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the respondents have taken exception to the very act of some of the licensees in approaching this Court. They seemed to be reeling under the impression that, availing the remedy in a High Court is an objectionable act. It is difficult to countenance such autocratic approaches. To certain extent, this approach of the respondents is reflected in Rule 70, added through an amendment. It reads as under: “Rule-70: Interpretation:- If there is any doubt or dispute regarding the application or interpretation of any of these rules, the decision of the Commissioner thereon shall be final.”

It is permissible for the Legislature to enact laws, for subordinate legislature, to frame Rules, and for the implementing agency, to take decisions. However, the interpretation of the Rules, under any Constitution, is a function assigned to Courts. An executive authority can never have a final word in the matter of interpretation. If such a course is permitted, it may prove detrimental to the Rule of Law and the very functioning of democracy.

It is not indicated as to how the trade would be thrown open to more competition, if the existing licences are not renewed. It is not as if the person, who is going to be granted a licence, in the place of the petitioners, is to function under any different circumstances, be it, as to licence fee or number of shops or new business regime. A higher degree of competition, is anyway going to be ensured by adding 700 more shops to the existing ones. Therefore, this Court does not find any basis, in the reasons spelt out by the respondents, in support of their decision, not to renew the existing licences.

The issue needs to be examined from another angle. The Government declared its policy, in relation to three categories of licences namely, IL-17, IL-24 and IL 24-B. It has been decided by the respondents to renew the existing IL-17 licences. The refusal is in respect of IL-24 and IL 24–B licences. The functional difference between these categories of licences is this: In case of IL-17 (Bars), the customer is supplied the liquor, and is required to consume the same in the premises. The relevant rules stipulate the nature of facilities, that are required to be provided for, to the customers. In case of IL-24 licences, a customer is not permitted to consume the liquor in the premises of the shop. An IL 24-B shop, in a way, is a hybrid of IL-17; and IL-24. On payment of additional fee, an IL-24 licensee, is granted IL-24-B licence, and shall be entitled to maintain a permit room. In such cases, the customers are entitled to purchase liquor and consume it in the permit room. In excise terms, IL-17 and IL 24-B are “on licences”; whereas IL-24 are “off licences”. The relevant definitions under Rule 3 (h) and (i) read as under:

Rule 3 (h): ‘off licence’ means a licence granted under these rules for sale of the liquor in sealed or capsuled bottles without permitting consumption on the licensed premises; Rule 3(i): ‘on licence’ means a licence granted under these rules for sale of the liquor in open bottles, glasses, or pegs for consumption within the licensed premises;

Rule 3 (h) has been amended through G.O.Ms.No.206, dated 10-02-2005, which read as under: “Off License” means a license granted under these rules for sale of the liquor in sealed or capsuled bottles or in any other manner without permitting consumption on the licensed premises”.

Rule 23 (b) (xiii) defines the parameters of IL-24 licences. It was correspondingly amended, from the point of view of sale of liquor and the consumption thereof. There does not exist any significant difference among the various categories of licences, referred to above, in the context of the object sought to be achieved through the new policy. It cannot be denied that, though a citizen does not have a fundamental right in doing business in intoxicants, the State action in regulating such business has to accord with the principles of reasonableness and fairness. Even in the trade in intoxicants, the State can not claim that it has the prerogative to act, as it likes, and that its actions cannot be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness or fairness. Whenever it intends to accord differential treatment, to different categories of persons, or licensees, it has to satisfy the Courts, that there exists a reasonable classification, to justify such differential treatments.

Classification, in the context of examining the State action under Article 14 of the Constitution, has its own attributes. For the most part of it, the similarity or variation of any two sets of activities or objects, has to be determined, from the relevant perspective. No two similar situations can be identical, or similar, from all points of view. It is only the perspective with which, the comparison or contrast is undertaken, that results in treating the circumstances or things, either similar or different. What Article 14 frowns at, is, differential treatment, if accorded, to persons or situations, which are broadly on the same plane, from the context of the treatment sought to be accorded. The difference between the two categories, which are sought to be distinguished, has to clear and discernable, from the point of view of the concerned activity. Constitution does not permit of, an artificial differentiation. Viewed from this angle, the functional differences among the various licensees, or the lack of it, do not support the classification, from the limited context of grant or refusal of renewals to the existing licences.

A situation similar to the one, obtaining in this batch of writ petitions, arose before the Madras High Court. By the commencement of the excise year 2002-03, in the State of Tamil Nadu, there existed 6,000 retail-vending shops of liquor. The licensees were granted under a policy, enunciated for the block period of 2001–2004. Through Government Orders dated 08-07-2002, the number of shops was proposed to be increased to 7,000, and it was proposed, not to renew the licences of the existing 6,000 shops. The existing licensees challenged the action of the State Government, on several grounds. It was urged on behalf of the State that the proposed action was resorted to, with an object of augmenting the State revenues. While upholding the policy, in all other respects, the High Court disapproved the action of the state Government, insofar as it provided for denial of renewal to the existing licences.

Learned Advocate General sought to distinguish the present case with the one, which is the subject matter of the above judgment. According to him, the licences in question, in the State of Tamil Nadu, were issued under a policy, for the block period of 2001-2004, and the interference by the High Court and the Supreme Court was mostly on account of the fact that the arrangement was sought to be disturbed in the middle of the block period.

This argument would certainly have been acceptable, had it been a case, where, the licences were granted for the block period of three years and were attempted to be discontinued, in between. That is not so. Though the policy was enunciated for the block period 2001-2004, the licences were granted for a period of only one year, providing for renewal thereafter. But for the policies enunciated year-after-year, the licences in the State of Andhra Pradesh are also renewable under Rule 26-A. Even the amended Rule does not take away the right of renewal altogether. The amendment makes such renewals, subject to the policy of the Government. The amendment in fact, does nothing more, than making the renewal discretionary. Discretion, in respect of any exercise of any power, has to be guided by proper and legal considerations. Basically, the policy of the Government is reflected in statutory rules. Even assuming that it is permissible to frame policy, outside the realm of the statutory rules, there cannot be a policy to such an extent, as to render the very statutory rule, to a dead letter. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu v. K.Vijayagamurthy (1 supra), squarely applies to the facts of the case.

The learned Advocate General relied upon several judgments rendered by the Supreme Court to sustain the impugned action. Amar Chandra v. Excise Collector, Tripura (5 supra), is a case in which the Government of Tripura cancelled the wholesale licence granted in favour of the appellant therein. The cancellation was on account of a policy decision taken by the State Government to grant such licences on tender-cum-auction basis. The appellant was granted licence on application. The Supreme Court upheld the action of the State, which was based on the policy. In the instant case, there is no change or shift in the policy in the matter of granting IL-24 licences. Rule 31 of the Rules continues to hold the field.

In State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., (6 supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the validity of prohibition imposed by the State of A.P. on the manufacture of liquor. Through Act 17 of 1995, the State of A.P. imposed prohibition on manufacture, sale and consumption of liquor in the State. Their lordships of the Supreme Court upheld its validity. Extensive reference was made to Article 19 of the Constitution and the decisions rendered thereon. It was in that context that the Supreme Court held that no individual can claim any right in the trade in liquor or intoxicants. The various steps taken by the Government, which are under consideration in this case, are exactly in the opposite direction. 4 2 . Another decision relied upon by the learned Advocate General is Krishnan Kakkanath V. Govt. OF Kerala (7 supra), wherein the scope and ambit of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the context of reasonable restrictions fell for consideration by the Supreme Court. The subject matter related to the imposition of restrictions as to purchase of pumpsets from the dealers approved by the Government. Such an action was held as not constituting any unreasonable restriction. No comparable fact situation obtains in the instant case.

Lastly, reliance is placed on the judgment in M/s.Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., v. Delhi Administration (8 supra). Through a policy, the Delhi administration enhanced the ‘Minimum Sales Figures’ (MSF) from 60,000 cases existing in the previous excise year to 75000 cases for the relevant excise year. The object was to test the acceptability of particular brand of liquor, in other places before it is licenced to be sold in Delhi. Dealing with the contention, the Supreme Court held as under: “The argument that since MSF laid down for the year 1994-95 were not changed till 1998-99, there was no need to increase MSF requirements in 1999-2000 or to further increase the same in the year 2000-2001 for the lowest price tag brand of liquor from 60,000 cases (7.2 lac bottles) to 75,000 cases (9 lac bottles) for the current year, suffers from the basic infirmity that it invites the court to enter into an area of testing the executive policy, not on grounds whether it is “just, fair and reasonable”, but whether the object could not have been achieved by fixing a lower MSF requirement. In other words Court is being invited to prescribe MSF requirements in exercise of its power of judicial review. That is not permissible and we must decline the invitation to enter that area. It is not within the province of this Court to lay down that the executive policy must always remain static, even if its revision is “just, fair and reasonable”. What is relevant is to find out whether the executive action is mala fide…”

In fact, the above observation of the Supreme Court contains the answer to the submission of the learned Advocate General. It is impermissible for the Court to decide the parameters of a policy in exercise of its power of judicial review, but it can test the policy from the angles of fairness, reasonableness and rationality. These tests, in turn, are the various facets of the broad principle underlying Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is on application of those principles, and not as a result of considering the merits and demerits of the policy, that this Court finds that the refusal to renew the existing IL-24 licences cannot be sustained. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.184, dated 07-02-2005, in so far as it directs that the existing IL-24 licences shall not be renewed, cannot be sustained. 4 5 . In some of the writ petitions, the validity of certain amendments to the Rules effected through G.O.Ms.No.206, dated 10.02.2005 were challenged. Though submissions were made extensively in relation to various provisions, this Court is not inclined to examine the validity of all the provisions so challenged. For example, Rule 3(h) and Rule 23 (B) (xiii) of the Rules re-define the scope of ‘off-licence’ as well as ‘Form IL-24 licence’. The State has the absolute power and discretion to provide for various kinds of licences and to define their scope and ambit. Courts cannot interfere with the same or substitute their opinion, for that of the enacted provision, even where they are convinced. The effect of Rule 70, which was introduced through amendment, attaching finality to the opinion of the Commissioner in the matter of interpretation of Rules, has already been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs and nothing further needs to be observed in relation thereto.

One important provision about which the petitioners have grievance is Rule 69(1) of the Rules. Rule 69(1) of the Rules reads as under:

The Licencee shall sell in retail the entire Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor before the expiry of the Licence. Any balance of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Beer found unsold at the expiry of the period of licence, shall be seized by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, or the officer authorized by him or Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise. Such seized IL & FL shall be permitted by the licencing authority to hand over to the licensee, provided that the licensee obtains a licence for the succeeding lease year. In case, the licencee fails to obtain/renew the licence the stocks seized may be sold to other licensees and the sale proceeds shall be remitted into Government treasury

. 4 7 . Sub-rule (2) provides for seizure in the event of cancellation or withdrawal of licences.

It is not known whether the State intends to evolve any other mechanism, once it realizes that it can not refuse renewal of IL-24 licences, as long as the existing number of shops is not reduced or the selection procedure under Rule 31 remains intact. Further, the Rules were amended through G.O.Ms.No.206 dated 10.02.2005, subsequent to the formulation of the policy. Parameters and contents of various licences have been redefined. G.O.Ms.No.184 does not contain any policy statement as to IL-24-B licences. In view of change of definition “off licence” in Rule 3(h) of the Rules and definition of ‘IL-24 licence’ under Rule 23 (a) (xiii), the entire issue needs to be given a fresh consideration. 5 0 . Now that an occasion arises for the State, to formulate its policy, its attention needs to be drawn to certain aspects of the matter. The Constitution has enumerated Directive principles, which are required to be kept in view, by the State, while formulating its policies. Several enactments and amendments to Constitution, were brought about, as measures to implement the Directive principles. Such laws were upheld even where a conflict was found with the fundamental rights. It is not necessary to delve, deep into the same. It is true that the Directive principles are not enforceable, as is evident from Article 37 of the Constitution. However on that account, the State cannot absolve itself, of the liability to give effect to the Directive principles. The purport of Article 37 is that a corresponding right does not inhere in a citizen from the obligation of the State, to implement the Directive principles. In jurisprudential terms, the legal correlative of the duty of the State under Part IV of the Constitution, does not exist in any citizen. (See Hohfeld’s Legal Correlatives. Salmond on Jurisprudence Twelfth Edition Page 224 – 233). On that account, its obligation does not either ease or cease.

Some of the directives, enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution are such that they cannot be accomplished within a time frame or up to an expected degree. There are many principles, which constitute more a guiding factor, than would result in concrete action. Though the compliance in such cases cannot be measured with mathematical precision, one must be able to perceive and discern, the intention and determination of the State to pursue the Directive principles, in the state policy. Three situations can be contemplated in this regard.

The first is where, the State takes steps to implement the Directive principles with necessary vigor. Instances of this are found in various legislations, enacted to implement agrarian reforms, abolition of child labour, protection of environment etc. Second situation is where the State fails to, or does not, take any steps for implementation of the directive, faced with variety of situations. Into this category, fall the inaction and inability in bringing about a uniform Civil Code, (Article 44) participation of members of management of industries (43-A) providing right to work, right to education and right to public assistance (Article 41) etc. The third is where the State action proceeds in a direction, totally opposed to what is enshrined in the Directive principles. If an example in this regard is needed, the steps taken by various states, to promote sale of liquor, of course, in the name of regulation, provide, the one. Article 47 of the Constitution commands that,

The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the Sate shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.

5 3 . In contrast, what the State of A.P. has been doing for the past few years is exemplified in the preamble to G.O.Ms.No.184. It proposes to “throw open the trade to more competition and thus ensure availability of good quality liquor to the consumer at affordable prices”.

This policy statement is nothing but the culmination of the similar steps taken in the preceding years. Ever since the year 1998, the effort has been to promote the sale of liquor to the maximum extent. The content of the policies centered around this object. From a total prohibition, the objective shifted to promotion of sale of liquor. Aggressive marketing techniques were adopted. The call of the day, or need of the hour was to make available more and more liquor, to the customers. The result is that liquor is available virtually at the doorsteps of the citizens. The statistics made available by the learned Advocate General disclose that about 1,45,000 applications are received for grant of licences for 7,500 I.L.-24 shops. Non-refundable application fee is more than 70 crores. It indicates the extent and levels, to which the trade was promoted. 5 5 . When the Constitution recognized the consumption of alcohol as an evil and exhorted that the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition, one has to think over, as to how far the various steps taken by the Government of A.P. in the past few years accords with that.

Rich people living in urban areas may be having their own style of life or may have treated consumption of liquor as symbol of their status. However, encouraging a common man, particularly in rural areas, to resort this most dangerous and wicked of the vices, cannot be justified even with the best of the reasons. The inability to control mafia, during the prohibition, which is pleaded as an excuse to abandon prohibition, reflects the weakness or helplessness of the State. It also raises doubt about its conviction to the noble object of prohibition. No state can take credit in doing what the mafia used to do, in the name of driving way, or containing the mafia. If that is the guiding factor, most of the crimes defined under IPC deserve to be regularized, since they could not be banished even after one-and-half centuries of enforcing Penal Code. In the hunt for easy money in the form of licence fee, and commission on sale of liquor, the State did not hesitate to sacrifice the lives and health of millions of gullible people, the welfare of equal number of families and the corresponding dignity and decency in the society.

In the name of providing liquor to the ‘common man’ at affordable prices, the State has forgotten or neglected the plight of the ‘common woman’ and ‘innocent children’. Many vices spoil the individual who is addicted to it. Intoxication is a vice, which spoils not only the person, but also his family. It does not stop there. The behaviour of an ebriated person would have its impact on every person, whom he comes across. The effort he makes to secure the money to purchase the liquor, and his mental condition, after the consumption, hardly need any emphasis. His beastly behaviour shuns decency and promotes crime. The most vulnerable to this vice are the women and children. It is not a coincidence that the State secured a prominent place in the spread of AIDS. There is a significant contribution of the excise policies of the recent years, to that position, or achievement, one may call it. In both the cases, the effort is only to tackle the manifestations of the evil, than to address the root cause. The result is that in the former case the policy drive is ending up sales promotion of condoms, while in the latter, it has boosted the sale of liquor. 5 8 . It is true that it is difficult to achieve the object enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution of India, in its entirety within a particular time. However, there does not exist any justification or basis for the State to undertake the acts, which defeat the said object, or to promote what was required to be prohibited.

Civilization and culture are not the things, which are built overnight or in few years. It is the cumulative effect of the works of right thinking people and the result of noble conduct of many, for centuries together, which bring about them. A pattern of life comes into existence through efforts of great men. In a democratic form of Government, the State is conferred with the right and endowed with the duty, to preserve cherishable values and to supplement the same from time to time. If the State’s policy is designed to destroy the same, directly or indirectly, the results are not too difficult to be imagined.

It is not as if there is any section in the society, particularly those who are endowed with the responsibility of formulating policies, are not aware of these fundamental aspects. The fact that every political party, in every election manifesto swears to bring about prohibition, either in a phased and gradual manner or at once, indicates their determination to achieve the same. Many a time, notwithstanding such noble assurances, decisions are taken which operate exactly, the opposite direction, irrespective of the party in power, obviously faced with a grim situation of finances. Howsoever the financial needs of the State may be, it cannot depend on funds, derived out of an unfortunate vice. If that is the yardstick, the sovereign function of the State gets reduced to the one, of collection of percentages by permitting objectionable activities. 6 1 . Even under the existing law, crimes of lesser magnitude, and consequences, compared to the vice of intoxication are punished and fined. The effect of those inconsequential crimes on the society, is relatively small. The endeavour of this Court is only to impress upon the policy makers or those who can influence the formulation of the policy, to give a thought to the matter, keeping in view, the objective underlying the Constitution as well as the welfare of the society. What is needed is a small amount of paradigm shift, and determination to fight the evil. It is not an issue which can be tackled by the Government alone. All sections, including the Government, the opposition, the executive, social organizations, and the local authorities, need to pay a little more attention to this, cutting across their party affiliations or functional limits.

Under the existing Panchayat Raj system, the permission of the Gram Panchayat, by a resolution, is needed even for the purpose of establishing any industry or to establish a market etc., to see that the activities undertaken in such places do not have any deleterious affect on the residents of the village. There is no reason why the view of the Panchayat be it in the Gramsabha or the Gram Panchayat be not required before a licence is granted for establishing bars or wine shops in that village. The residents of the village, particularly the women folk, would be in a position to know as to who exactly are the persons, responsible for bringing about such shops, and take remedial steps. Entrusting the gram panchayat or local bodies with the control and regulation of such shops in coordination with the excise officials go a very long way, in containing the menace. Committees at village levels can be constituted on par with the existing Education Committees, Irrigation Committees etc.