Dismissed

Vasireddy Ravi Chandra, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jan 2022WP/4248/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a lessee challenging the grant of a liquor license in leased premises. The Court held the petition not maintainable due to pending civil litigation and lack of clean hands due to suppression of facts. It ruled excise authorities are not concerned with civil disputes between parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to issue license was dismissed; the Writ Petition was dismissed in its entirety.

Vasireddy Ravi Chandra, Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Writ Petition No.4248 of 2021

¶3

O R D E R:-

¶4

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

¶5

“ declaring the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in trying to issue license to respondent No.4 men for liquor mall in D.No.3-14-10, New Door No.11/245 situated at Guntur Municipality Corporation, Guntur District, is highly illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to give the permission for establishment of a liquor mall in D.No.3-14-10, New Door No.11/245 situated at Guntur Municipality Corporation, Guntur District, until lease period of the petitioner’s firm is completed”.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Excise appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and the Standing Counsel for A.P. Beverages appearing for Respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached respondent No.4 to get lease of the property situated in D.No.3-14-10, New Door No.11/245 RCC Building Consisting Cellar, Ground floor and

¶8

¶9

four floors in an extent of 800 sq.yards in Guntur Municipal Corporation Area, Guntur District, for running a hotel namely “Yes Grand”. The Petitioner and other partners entered into a partnership agreement with certain terms and conditions to run the hotel namely "YES GRAND". The terms of the partnership deed is duly incorporated in a written form and the partnership deed was reduced into writing. Initially three partners were there and thereafter another 8 partners were admitted in the partnership. After retirement of the some of the partners, three persons remain as partners as on date the partnership agreement was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms under Indian Partnership Act, 1932, on 22.06.2017.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.4 agreed to let out the property and thereafter, terms of the lease commencing from 01.06.2017 to 31.05.2025 was fixed and reduced into writing on Rs.100/- stamp paper. Initially on 01-06-2017 two separate agreements regarding rental of the premises were executed by signing both lessor (4^th Respondent) and lessees (the Petitioner and 3 others). Subsequently, M. Sudhakar, the 4^th partner retired from the firm.

¶11

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.4 agreed to receive rent for Rs.3,60,000/- for first 3 floors building and it was agreed therein that the ground floor first and second floors for establishment and running Veg & Non-Veg A.C Restaurant in ground floor and first floor and function hall in the second floor. Each floor nearly 3000 Sq.ft. of length area was covered as the construction area. Another agreement dated 01-06-2017 was executed between petitioner firm and 4^th respondent commencing from 01.06.2017 up to 31.05.2025 to let out 3^rd and 4^th floors for running lodge business. Respondent No.4 handed over the empty structure without interior works for a monthly rent of Rs.1,50,000/ for third and fourth floors. The rent shall be enhanced 20% for every two years from 01.06.2017 onwards. Thereafter, the petitioner and other partners developed the building by constructing conference hall in the 2^nd floor and construction of rooms in 3^rd & 4^th floors by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 2,75,00,000/-.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Petitioner's firm could not run the hotel from March 2020 to January 2021 due to Corona Pandemic and the imposition of lockdown throughout the country. Now,

¶14

¶15

respondent No.4 trying to let out the ground floor to others without knowledge and consent of the petitioner's firm even though the lease period of the petitioner is in subsistence and the official Respondents No. 1 to 3 are trying to give permission to establish Liquor Mall in favor of 3^rd parties. The petitioner's firm issued legal notice to the respondent authorities requesting not to give such permission to 3^rd parties. In spite of issuing notice, the respondents are trying to issue license to the 4^th respondent men for running a Liquor mall in the leased premises of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶16

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed Counter Affidavits stating that petitioner and others filed O.S.No.120 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, regarding the agreement between Sri B. Sunilkanth Reddy, Director, M/s Sunlok Infra Private Limited and Respondent No.4/Smt Chava Subhashini, W/o Viswanath Prasad, who is the owner of the said property. After hearing both sides, learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, passed interim orders in I.A.No.57 of 2021 in O.S.No.120 of 2021, dated 17.02.2021, declaring that since the petitioners did not show their prima facie possession over the petition schedule

¶17

¶18

property, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of temporary injunction as prayed for. He further submits that the petitioner herein, without availing the civil remedies having available to him subsequent to the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, filed the present Writ Petition with unclean hands by suppressing the above said facts. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Respondent No.4 further stated that the Writ Petitioner is not at all a partner in “Yes Grand Hotel”. One Sri Mannam Sudhakar, who took the property on lease, vacated the premises as he failed to pay the rent regularly and delivered vacant possession to this respondent and accordingly, two agreements dated 01.06.2017 stands cancelled and the agreed lease was terminated and thereafter, she let out the property to third parties and now they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The present lease holder of 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th floors of the property filed O.S.No.67 of 2021 and obtained ad-interim injunction against the parties in O.S.No.120 of 2021 and Sri Mallam Sudhakar, who took the subject property on lease, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. As such, the Writ Petitioner is not in possession of the property. The Writ

¶20

¶21

Petition neither filed any application for grant of license nor he participated in the bid for obtaining license. Therefore, Writ Petition is not maintainable as there is no cause of action to file the present Writ Petition.

¶22

Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.120 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur along with others against the 4^th Respondent herein seeking injunction restraining the 4^th Respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. They also filed I.A.No.57 of 2021 for temporary injunction. The Court below is pleased to dismiss the I.A.No.57 of 2021 after detailed enquiry on 17.02.2021.

¶23

In view of these facts, it is clear that a civil litigation is pending between the petitioner and the 4^th Respondent with regard to the subject property mentioned in this writ petition. The petitioner without disclosing about the filing of the suit and dismissal of the temporary injunction petition filed the present writ petition suppressing the facts. The present writ petition is filed seeking direction to the official Respondents not to issue license to the 4^th

¶24

¶25

Respondent in respect of the subject property mentioned in this writ petition, which is the suit schedule property in O.S.No.120 of 2021. As such, in our considered view, this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶26

As per Rule 9 of A.P. Excise (grant of licence of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2019, the official Respondents have to consider the application for licence basing on the valid documents produced by the applicant. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, the official Respondents are no way concerned with the disputes arisen between the petitioner and the 4^th Respondent. As such, there is no any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner failed to make out any case on facts or law warranting interference of this Court to issue writ of mandamus.

¶27

For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶28

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

¶29

Date : 04.01.2022. PGR

¶30

______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶31

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶33

Writ Petition No.4248 of 2021

¶34

Date : 04-01-2022

¶35

PGR

Vasireddy Ravi Chandra, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasireddy Ravi Chandra, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Fathimabee, Vs Sri P. Koteswar Rao

Mr. Naidu Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velivela Nagendram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Dussa Sashikala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Elisha Vs B.Rajasekar, Principal Secretary

M/s. Raghava Project Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri Gopala Krishna Diwedi, I.A.S.