Polarowth Surya Kala Vs the State of Ap

POLAROWTH SURYA KALA, W/O. POLIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS AT D. NO.65-1-194/4, MAIN ROAD, SRIHARIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EXCISE AND PROHIBITION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522241

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH AT MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522503

¶14

THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530001

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT530001.

¶16

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE POLICE STATION, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530027

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

2

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting Form 2B License and stock to the petitioner despite compliance of entire process in pursuance of provisional license is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and to consequently the respondents to issue regular license in Form 2B to the petitioner in respect of premises No.65-1-194/5, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam and to pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the respondents to issue regular Form 2 B license and release the stock to the petitioner in respect of premises No.65-1-194/5, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.V V SATISH

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 7696/2026

¶30

ORDER:-

¶31

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India

¶32

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶33

“ to issue a Writ, Order particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting Form 2B License and stock to the petitioner despite compliance of entire process in pursuance of provisional license is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to issue regular license in Form 2B to the petitioner in respect of premises No.65-1-194/5, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam and to pass such other order or orders as deem fit in the circumstance of the case….”

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government

¶35

Pleader for the respondents.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted provisional license on 05.02.2026, but not granted regular 2B license even though the petitioner complied with the requirements for granting regular license. The provisional license already granted is valid upto 06.03.2026 or till the regular license is granted whichever is earlier. Pending the regular license, the petitioner has been supplying material even after 06.03.2026. The supplies which were made after 06.03.2026 are going to be completed. Now the respondents are not extending the supplies in the absence of regular license under 2B. Even though the claim of the petitioner was pending with the

¶37

4

¶38

respondents, so far the respondents neither issued nor replied to the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶39

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that due to the non-submission of bank guarantee only the petitioner application for granting 2B license was not considered.

¶40

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner furnished the bank guarantee said to have been submitted along with the 2B application for getting regular license.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that if the objection of the respondents is only non-submission of the bank guarantee, the petitioner submits that the bank guarantee was already submitted on 24.02.2026 for an amount of Rs.15,12,500/-. If the subject bank guarantee is main requirement to grant 2B license, the respondents are permitted to take an enquiry with immediate effect and if as long as the petitioner complied with all the requirements for granting regular license pursuant to the provisional license, the petitioner cannot be denied for granting regular license due to non-exercise of power by the respondents within time pending the application.

¶42

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to consider the application of the petitioner for granting 2B regular license and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three(3) weeks from the date of receipt

¶43

5

¶44

of copy of this Order. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is entitled to supply the

¶45

stocks as per the provisional license granted to the petitioner.

¶46