IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.24899 AND 25878 of 2014 BETWEEN A.Venkateswarlu and Y.Narendra AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The dispute, which is subject matter of both these writ petitions, revolves round two licences of liquor shops of the petitioners in each of these writ petitions. While the petitioner in W.P.No.24899 of 2014 (for convenience sake referred to by his name Y.Narendra) is the licencee of a shop at Gazette Serial No.9 for Division No.21, Kondayapalem centre, Nellore Municipal Corporation, the petitioner in W.P.No.25878 of 2014, (for convenience sake referred to by his name Allur Venkateswarlu) is the licensee of a shop at Gazette Serial No.18, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Ummareddy Gunta and other area of Division No.22.
2. The writ petition filed by Y.Narendra, referred to above, complains that the licencee-Allur Venkateshwarlu has located his shop in Division No.21, where the said Y.Narendra is the licencee, and, therefore, seeks a relief for declaring that A4 shop located by respondent No.4 at D.No.25-13-61A, plot Nos.6 and 7 in survey No.410 of Kondayapalem village falls in Division No.21 and for a direction to respondent No.4 to shift the shop to an appropriate location.
3. It appears that the said petitioner-Y.Narendra submitted a representation before the Excise Superintendent on 13.08.2014, which was acknowledged by the office of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent on 21.08.2014, requesting him to take steps for shifting of the aforesaid shop located by the licencee Allur Venkateswarlu. It further appears from the record that the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent called for remarks from the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Nellore and on the basis of the said report, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent having confirmed that the shop of Allur Venkateswarlu falls in Kondayapalem area and is within the area of operation of the shop of Y.Narendra, issued a notice to Allur Venkateswarlu requiring him to shift the shop to a place notified at Sl.No.18 of the Gazette.
4. Questioning the said notice, Allur Venkateswarlu filed W.P.No.25878 of 2014 inter alia on the ground that the said proceeding is issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent without notice to him and without considering the documents, which he holds stating that the said shop is located in Ummareddygunta. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copies of the certificate issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Nellore, Ex.P3, certifying that the aforesaid house, where the shop is located, falls in Ummareddy Gunta and the Special Notice of Property Tax issued by the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, treating the premises as located in Ummareddy Gunta as well as a copy of the town survey map in support of his contention.
5. When both the writ petitions were heard by this court, it was noticed that petitioners in both the writ petitions are relying upon the similar certificates issued by the then Commissioner of Nellore Municipal Corporation, certifying that the same house as falling in survey No.410 of Kondayapalem village in Division No.21 of Nellore City, whereas the other certificate certifies that the said house falls in Ward No.25/2 and is located in Ummareddy Gunta as per the records of the Corporation. Keeping in view the conflicting certificates, referred to above, issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, this court directed impleadment of Municipal Corporation, Nellore, so as to explain the fact situation.
6. The Municipal Corporation is, accordingly, impleaded as respondent in both the writ petitions and Mr.B.Hanumantha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, has taken instructions and the Commissioner has filed a counter affidavit. Brief reference to the said counter affidavit of the Commissioner shows that the existence of two conflicting certificates is noticed from the records of the Corporation by the Commissioner and in view of the said inconsistent certificates issued by the Corporation regarding the location of the said premises, Commissioner states in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit as follows:
“I submit that on due verification of survey records it is found that Ummareddygunta is comprised in Sy.No.2058 of Nellore Bit-II Village presently within the area of Nellore Municipal Corporation. The premises of Smt.G.Sarada, W/o.Venkata Subba Reddy bearing D.No.25/13/61/A is located in Sy.No.410 of Kondayapalem Revenue Village in Election Division No.21 of this Corporation.”
7. The notice issued by the Superintendent of Excise, which is impugned in W.P.No.25878 of 2014 is, therefore, apparently based on the report and information given by the Municipal Corporation with regard to the location of the said premises. Even now, however, there is a serious contest between both the petitioners and both the petitioners have produced a set of documents in support of their respective claims. I find from the impugned proceedings that the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent has issued the impugned notice directing Allur Venkateswarlu to shift the premises from the existing location to some other location to a place notified in Sl.No.18 of the Gazettee. However, while issuing the said notice the licencee Allur Venkateswarlu has not been heard nor his justification is taken into consideration. The impugned proceedings though styled as a notice, does contain a direction to shift the existing licencee shop. Since Allur Venkateswarlu has already established the shop and has been carrying on business from the commencement of excise year 2014-15, in my view, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice that Allur Venkateswarlu, gets an opportunity to submit his objections and thereafter let both the petitioners are heard and final decision is taken with regard to shifting or otherwise by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nellore-I.
8. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of directing the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent to consider the objections filed by Allur Venkateswarlu to the proposed notice and thereafter hear both the petitioners and take an appropriate decision in the matter with reference to the records and pass appropriate orders. Allur Venkateswarlu, is granted a week’s time to submit his objections and thereafter the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent shall make appropriate enquiry and take a decision in the matter at the earliest, in any case, within two weeks of filing of the representation.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 5, 2014 Note:
Furnish copy as early as possible.
{B/o} LMV