TKrishna, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

'■X IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30838 OF 2n9d

¶5

Between:

¶6

Business, nl?., Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna R M/s.Chinnj Wines at Premises Bearing D.No.4-19/1 Rice Mill Back Side, Pamidimukkala Village and Mandal, Krishna District. '

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

State of Andhra Pradesh, ^ ^ Revenue (Excise-ll) Department, AP, secretariat, at Velagapudi, Amaravathi Rep. by its Principal Secretary

¶10

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Vijayawada, NTR District,

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Officer, Krishna

¶12

District.

¶13

The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Krishna District, 5. Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station Vuyyuru PS

¶14

Krishna District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particuiarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in RC.No.166/2024/A2 dated

¶17

16.12.2024, as Illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶18

. lA NO: 1 OF 9n7A

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC is fiied praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in RC.No. 166/2024/A2 dated 16-12-2024, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. OMR LAW FIRM

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

APHC010592312024

¶24

[3329]

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 30838/2024

Between:

Tkrishna

...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

1.0 M R LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of^the Constitution of India claiming the following relief;

¶41

“Issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of^the 4 th respondent issued in RC.No. 166/2024/A2 dated 16.12.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶42

The petitioner was granted A-4 license under the provisions of A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2024 on 16.10.2024 valid upto 30.09.2026. He had been running the shopping in the name and style of M/s. Chinni Wines. The 4^^ respondent^issuedshow cause notice in RC.No.166/2024/A2 dated 16.12.2024 alleging that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities, calling upon explanation of the petitioner as to why the license in respect of the petitioner’s shop shall not be suspended. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 31.12.2024, requesting to drop all further proceedings in pursuance^{oftheshowcause} notice dated 16.12.2024. 3. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents. during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 16.12.2024, without touching the merits of the case.

¶43

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the representation dated 16.12.2024, if any pending with the respondents.

¶44

In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh^’’, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, f they do no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 16.12.2024, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶45

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 16.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner pending with the respondents, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and unofficial respondent, in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. No costs.

¶46