Disposed

Rayapudi Laxman Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Apr 2009WP/8780/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the forfeiture of his deposit and denial of liquor licence due to alleged illegal selection of Respondent No.4 as successful applicant. Petitioner claims he was present but his application ignored. The Court noted disputed facts regarding presence and time of appearance, holding such facts cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Court directed petitioner to file a represe

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file representation before Respondents 2 and 3 regarding presence at selection to seek refund within four weeks.

Rayapudi Laxman Rao, Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH &

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.8780 of 2000

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rayapudi Laxman Rao, S/o. Laxminarayana, R/o.Kurumanchi Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary to

¶12

Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The District Collector,

¶14

Khammam, Khammam District.

¶15

3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent,

¶16

Khammam, Khammam District. 4 Ch.Mallesh, S/o. Kistaiah. H.No.F/21/NSP, New Colony, Khammam.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature to Mandamus declaring the rule 31(4) (b) to (e) of A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rule 1970 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.170, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dated 31/03/2000 and consequently selection of Respondent No.4 for grant of IL24 under provisions of A.P. Excise Act and forfeiture of deposit made by petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14, 19(i) (g) of Constitution of India or pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}

¶23

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.8780 of 2000

¶25

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

¶26

The petitioner questions Rule-31(4) (b) to (e) of the A.P.Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dated 31.03.2000, as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶27

It is stated that the petitioner submitted an application along with a demand draft for Rs.85,000/- for grant of an IL 24 licence for Kusumanchi in accordance with the amended Rules of the A.P.Indian Liquor and Foregn Liquor Rules, 1970. It is stated that though the petitioner was present at the time of drawal of lots on 09.05.2000, his application was not considered but the application of the 4^th respondent was illegally considered and the amount of Rs.85,000/paid by the petitioner towards 1/3^rd of the annual licence fee was also forfeited. The petitioner questions the said action.

¶28

A counter has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 stating that the application of the petitioner was considered along with 20 other applications, and out of the 21 applicants, only 11 were present at the time of drawal of lots, in which the name of the petitioner was announced stating that he was the successful applicant. It is stated

¶29

that as the petitioner was not available at the time of selection, the amount deposited by the petitioner was forfeited and fresh drawal of lots was taken up. The names of one K.Bhaskar and thereafter, A.Chinna Babu were announced as successful, but they were also absent and their deposited amount was also forfeited. Again, drawal of lots was conducted and the 4^th respondent-Ch.Mallesh was selected as the successful applicant. The 4^th respondent was present and fulfilled the terms and conditions and therefore, the IL-24 licence was granted in his favour. After completion of the selection process, the petitioner appeared and pleaded his absence, by which time the selection of the 4^th respondent was finalized.

¶30

In view of the disputed questions of facts arising for consideration, as to whether the petitioner was actually present at the time of the selection and whether he came after completion of the selection process, we are of the opinion that such disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by this Court. Having regard to the facts of the case, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before Respondents 2 and 3 to substantiate the claim of his presence at the time of drawal of lots and seek return of the forfeiture amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the filing of such representation, if Respondents 2 and 3 come to the conclusion that the petitioner was present at the time of selection and that he was prevented from entering into the hall, then the respondents may consider his request for refund of the forfeited amount.

¶31

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

V.ESWARAIAH,J

¶33

SANJAY KUMAR,J

¶34

Dated: 01.04.2009 Dsr

.... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary to

¶40

Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶41

2 The District Collector,

¶42

Khammam, Khammam District.

¶43

3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶44

4 2. 2CCs to

¶45

5. 2CD copies

Rayapudi Laxman Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayapudi Laxman Rao, v. The Government 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

Sri. Bandi Saraswathi, Vs The Election Commission of India

Ajeya Bharat Party Vs The Chief Election Commissioner

G. Prabhakar Rao Vs Indian Bank

Kalva Bojjanna Vs The Election Commission of India

S.Siva Shankar, Vs The Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Rashtriya Praja Congress (Secular) having its Vs The Election Commission of India