IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34516 of 2014 BETWEEN Sri Sambasiva Wines and another.
... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROH. & EXCISE MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise and learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that respondents 2 to 4 are in the process of granting permission for shifting of the bar and restaurant of respondent No.5 located at Ward No.13 to Ward No.18 of Eluru, West Godavari District. Petitioners are licensees of A4 shop No.GSL 13 in Ward No.18 of Eluru and seek to object the proposed shifting. Petitioners state that they have filed objections before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, who is the competent authority to consider the request for shifting of bar and restaurant of respondent No.5 and that the said objections are pending from 26.09.2014. Petitioners state that without taking into consideration the said objections, the request of respondent No.5 for shifting, as above, is likely to be considered.
3. Learned Government Pleader has received instructions, which state that respondent No.2 has not yet passed any orders on the request for shifting made by respondent No.5.
4. Hence, at this stage, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the objections of the petitioners at the time of consideration of request of respondent No.5 for permitting the shifting of his bar and restaurant from ward No.13 to ward No.18, as above, in accordance with law. However, if the petitioners so chose, they are at liberty to file a supplementary representation before respondent No.2 ventilating their grievance, which shall also be considered.
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 December 26, 2014 DSK