Disposed

Surya Wines v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2019WP/10122/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by a license holder seeking non-interference with business operations, the court directed Excise Department respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding stock supply. The court held that disputes over tenancy title must be resolved by the Civil Court and limited its mandate to preventing unauthorized interference with the business. The petition was disposed

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 to 5 directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate Orders in accordance with Law.

Surya Wines Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 10122 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This is a Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioner

¶4

seeking for a direction to Respondents 1 to 5 not to interfere

¶5

with the day to day affairs of the petitioner’s business premises bearing Door No.1-34/3/2 of Padmavathipuram Village, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise Department appearing for the Respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for appearing for Respondent No.8.

¶7

The Petitioner was granted license for a period of two

¶8

years commencing from 01-07-2017 to 30-06-2019, vide Order dt.04-04-2018. The Government has issued a Memo No.REV.01-CPEOPOMT (EXPM)/2/2019-Ex.II, dated 25-06-

¶9

2019, and accorded permission to extend the licence period of A4 shop from 01-07-2019 to 30-09-2019. The petitioner has

¶10

paid a sum of Rs.3,12,500/- towards licence fee for the period

¶11

¶12

from 01-07-2019 to 30-09-2019 and later he paid another

¶13

sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards three months extension non refundable Re-Registration fee of A4 shop and he has also paid an amount of Rs.62,500/- for another three months for extension of A4 shop.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the petitioner was allowed to purchase the stock on 01-07-2019 for a value of Rs.1,53,646/-, respondent No.8 is pressurizing the respondents 1 to 5 to close the petitioner’s shop without

¶15

having any right, interest and title over the subject premises.

¶16

The contention of respondent No.8 is that, since the lease period has been expired by 30-06-2019 and not extended further, petitioner cannot continue his business in the subject premises.

¶17

On consideration of the material on record, it appears that, there is a dispute with regard to the tenancy between the petitioner and respondent No.8 over the subject premises,

¶18

¶19

for which the petitioner’s licence has been granted by the Excise Department.

¶20

At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the representation made by the Petitioner on 01-07-2019 to the Excise Department, which was not considered, resulting in preferring the present Writ Petition.

¶21

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the fact that there is a dispute with regard to the tenancy, the limited scope of this Writ Petition is only to the extent of non-supply of stock to the shop of the petitioner, and interfering with his business, which is the violation of Article 19 (9) and Article 14 of Constitution of India.

¶22

Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate Orders in accordance with Law. As far as the dispute with regard to the tenancy is concerned, the

¶23

¶24

parties may approach the Civil Court for redressal of their

¶25

grievance.

¶26

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶27

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ

¶29

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶30

______________________ G.SHYAM PRASAD, J

Date: 12.09.2019

Arr/eha

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶35

WRIT PETITION No. 10122 OF 2019

¶36

Date: 12-09.2019

¶37

Arr/eha

Surya Wines v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Wines v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Bethala Sarojani at Sarojinamma Vs the State of Ap

Dasari Narayana Swamy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bagi Sudhakar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Masthan Vs the State of Ap

Samala Sivaram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pemmadi Nageswararao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh