IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14293 OF 2010 DATED:23.06.2010 Between:
Uppala Nehru … Petitioner And Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Nampally, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14293 OF 2010 ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed by Uppala Nehru with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus directing the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, to pass appropriate orders on the representation dt.19.6.2010.
The petitioner claims to be in foreign liquor business from the year 2008 having entered into a valid agreement with fourth respondent – Mekala Venkata Ranga Rao on 25.6.2008. The Joint Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad – second respondent granted licence No.21/2006-07 in favour of fourth respondent to sell all kinds of Indian made foreign liquor in the premises bearing D.No.11-738 and 739, Jagannadhapuram, Machilipatnam, under the name and style of M/s.B.K.V.V. Restaurant and Bar. The petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement with fourth respondent on 25.6.2008 whereunder the fourth respondent transferred his licence rights for a valid consideration of Rs.2,99,999/-. Some disputes cropped up between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and thereby the fourth respondent became hostile to him. The petitioner submitted representation dt.19.6.2010 to first respondent for transfer of licence of fourth respondent – Bar and Restaurant in his favour. There being no action on the part of first respondent, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got the licence rights transferred in his favour under an agreement dt.25.6.2008 executed by fourth respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dt.19.6.2010 for transfer of licence rights in his favour and there being no action on the part of first respondent, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The dispute is between the petitioner and the fourth respondent in respect of the agreement stated to have been executed between them on 25.6.2008. Fourth respondent is a licensee. If the petitioner has any grievance against fourth respondent, he has to workout his remedies by approaching the civil court and not by way of writ petition invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 23.06.2010 bnr