THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14355 OF 2010 DATED: 23rd JUNE 2010.
BETWEEN:
ARJI SANKAR RAO .. PETITIONER AND THE DEPUTY OMMISSIONER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE MAHADAVADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14355 OF 2010 ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed by Sri.Arji Sankar Rao with a prayer to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in renewing the licence of 4th respondent-P.Markandeyulu in the name and style of M/s.Anupama Restaurant and Bar, Ushodaya Junction, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam, as arbitrary and illegal.
2. The 2nd respondent-Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Visakhapatnam issued licence to the 4th respondent to run a bar in the name and style of M/s.Anupama Restaurant and Bar. The petitioner claims to have got the license transferred in his name for a consideration of Rs.10.00 lakhs. Subsequently some misunderstandings arose between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 complaining certain contraventions made by the 4th respondent. There being no action on the representation the petitioner approached this court to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. When the writ petition came up for admission learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material brought on record.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent contravened the terms and conditions of the licence and therefore he is ineligible for renewal of the license. A further submission has been made that the petitioner submitted representation to respondent Nos.1 to 3 pointing out various contraventions of the license resorted to by the 4th respondent and there being no action, necessary direction is required to be given to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate action.
6. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner himself claims to have got the license transferred in his favour by paying a consideration of Rs.10.00 lakhs which is apparently contrary to the conditions of license. The dispute is between the petitioner and 4th respondent in respect of some monetary transactions. These disputes are required to be settled by the parties by taking recourse to civil remedy. There is no public law element involved warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
23rd June, 2010. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14355 OF 2010 DATED: 23rd JUNE 2010.