IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) BETWEEN TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.33077 of 2014 Pallikonda Srinivasulu.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. T.C. KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROH. & EXCISE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner is a successful bidder relating to liquor shop located at Sl.No.172, Mypadu Bit for which the petitioner has complied with all the requirements. Petitioner states that he was granted provisional license on 30.06.2014 and the license is valid from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015. Petitioner states that for the previous two years also the liquor shop was being run on the same premises. While so, the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Indukurpet on 03.07.2014 stating that certain objections from villagers are received opposing establishment of A4 shop at Mypadu and petitioner was requested to establish the shop without any objections from the villagers. Petitioner states that his shop is in existence for more than 3½ months and for remaining eight months, if he is directed to shift the shop, the same will result in serious prejudice to him. Petitioner further states that on account of business rivalry the present action is taken and the supply of stocks is also being affected.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, who had taken time to get instructions, submits that the petitioner is at liberty to submit his reply/representation to the said proposal of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector and if the petitioner submits his reply/representation, the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, respondent No.3, would consider the entire aspect and pass appropriate orders.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader also accepts that the petitioner is carrying on business and is being supplied with stocks.
4. In view of the above, the apprehension of the petitioner that his shop will be forcibly shifted is clearly presumptive. However, the petitioner is permitted to make a detailed reply/representation to the proposal of respondent No.4, as per impugned proceedings dated 03.07.2014 and such reply/representation shall be considered by respondent No.3 in the light of all attending circumstances and take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law.
It is needless to point out that till respondent No.3 takes an appropriate decision, the working of the petitioner’s shop shall not be affected by withholding stocks or otherwise.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 11, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 12.11.2014. (B/o) DSK