Meka Subrahmanyeswar Rao v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and four
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Nov 2006
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Disposed of
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 20455 of 2006
Operative part
O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to grant licence in violation of Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 in favour of the fourth respondent for establishing a Bar and Restaurant at Door No.4/193 and 4/194 near Naga Pothurao Center, Rajupet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Learned Government Pleader, under instructions, has stated that the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 for the very same relief is pending before the Government. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the Revision Petition of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the fourth respondent to put forth his version. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to challenge the licence granted in favour of the fourth respondent by seeking necessary amendment of the Revision Petition pending before the first respondent. No costs. Dated: 06-11-2006 KLP ______________ G. ROHINI, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 — s. 64.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 06 Nov 2006. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.