Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents in particular the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
1 The Commissioner of Proh & Excise, Government of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 the Dy. Commissioner, Proh and Excise, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 the Excise Superintendent, Proh & Excise, Tekkemitta, Nellore. 4 The District Collector, Nellore District. Nellore. 5 Bhargavi Bar and Restaurant, rep. by its Proprietor B. Pullaiah, S/o. Srinivasulu, R/o. D.No. 16-4-1868, Harnathpuram, Balaramnagar, 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 an appropriate Order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Official respondents herein in proposing to grant licence in favour of the 5th respondent to run the Bar and Restaurant at premises bearing D.No. 16-4-1868, Harnadhapuram ( Balaramnagar), Nellore Town and District, which is situated within the residential locality as well as educational institutions, without initiating any action on the representation submitted by the petitioners along with other on 7- 10-2004 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to permit the 5th respondent to commence the business. Counsel for the Petitioners:SMT.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for 5th respondent: Mr. P. Sreedhar Reddy The Court at the stage of admission made the following
ORDER:
Petitioners claim to be the residents of Haranadhapuram of Nellore town. According to them, the fifth respondent proposed to establish a bar and restaurant in the residential locality in contravention of Rule 6 of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970. They plead that on coming to know the efforts of the fifth respondent, they have made representations to respondents 1 to 4 and despite the same, the steps are being taken to grant licence to the fifth respondent. The petitioners allege the Commissioner of Nellore Municipality, in response to a query, has stated that the proposed place is in the middle of residential locality and still, the respondents 1 to 3 are inclined to grant licence to the fifth respondent. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing respondents 1 to 4 submits that the application of the fifth respondent for grant of licence on I.L. 17 is at the stage of consideration and the objections raised by the petitioners would certainly be taken into account at appropriate stage.
Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, submits that the place selected by the fifth respondent does not violate any provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 or the Rules made there under and the writ petition is filed with a mala fide intention. The petitioners object for the proposed establishment of bar and restaurant at Haranadhapuram locality of Nellore town. The A.P. Excise Act and the Rules made there under provide necessary guidelines in the matter of selection of places for establishment of bars and restaurants or other categories of wine shops. The relevant provisions mandate that the views of the local authority shall also be taken into account before according such permissions. The question as to whether the place chosen by the fifth respondent does not conform to the relevant provisions, has to be dealt with by the licensing authority and it is too early to conclude that the representation made by the petitioners has not been considered or taken into account.
Operative part
This writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents in particular the first respondent shall take into account the objections raised by the petitioners before any licence is granted to the fifth respondent. In case, the objections raised by the petitioners are not found valid, the reasons for such a conclusion shall also be communicated to the petitioners. No order as to costs. -----------------------
26.11.2004 Note: Issue CC. By 29.11.2004 (BO) To 1 The Commissioner of Proh & Excise, Government of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 the Dy. Commissioner, Proh and Excise, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 the Excise Superintendent, Proh & Excise, Tekkemitta, Nellore. 4 The District Collector, Nellore District. Nellore. 5 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Prohibition & Excise, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 6 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents in particular the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; A.P. Excise Act, 1968; A.P. Excise Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Nov 2004. The bench was L NARASIMHA REDDY.
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.