Allowed

Dantuluri Venkata Ramana Raju, v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam

Telangana HC29 Aug 2012WA/1055/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal challenging the Single Judge order refusing regular liquor license, the Supreme Court directed respondent authorities to pass an appropriate order addressing the permit extension before a specified deadline, clarifying jurisdictional village requirements without directly interfering with the Single Judge's core decision on the party's right to select premises in the notified ar

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent authorities to pass appropriate order by 3.9.2012 regarding licence grant or refusal based on facts and law.

Dantuluri Venkata Ramana Raju, Vs The District… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO.1055 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:29.8.2012

¶5

Between:

¶6

Dantuluri Venkata Ramana Raju … Appellant

¶7

And

¶8

The District Collector Visakhapatnam and another … Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

WRIT APPEAL NO.1055 OF 2012

¶12

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order dt.7.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No.23654 of 2012.

¶14

The appellant – petitioner filed the writ petition inter alia to declare the action of the respondents in not considering issuance of regular licence for the year 2012 and 2013 on the basis of the lease deed and other documents furnished by him for Gazette Sl. No.310, Shop Locality: Venkatapuram, in favour of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2012, and for consequential directions.

¶15

The appellant – petitioner was granted a provisional licence for selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) relating to Shop at Sl. No.310, Venkatapuram Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The case of the petitioner is that though in the notification, Venkatapuram Village was notified for grant of licence, said village is a hamlet of Haripuram Village and the petitioner has been carrying on the business in Haripuram, in the place precisely next to the place where the previous licensee in respect of the Venkatapuram village used to run the business. The officials of respondent No.2 raised an objection that the premises where the petitioner has been carrying on the business does not fall in Venkatapuram Village and it is only in the

¶16

Haripuram Revenue Village, and a notice was by respondent No.2 to the petitioner directing him to obtain the original licence in respect of Venkatapuram Village or before 25.7.2012. In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted reply dt.25.7.2012 and as no order was passed in the matter, he filed the writ petition.

¶17

The Hon’ble Single Judge duly considered the facts of the case and observed that Haripuram is not notified as village where a shop can be established and the petitioner can have a right to establish his shop in Venkataspuram Village only. His Lordship while disposing of the writ petition, also observed that in view of the fact that the petitioner is continuing in the shop of the previous licensee, he is permitted to run the shop for a period of four weeks from the date of the order so as to enable him to select a suitable premises in Venkatapuram Village and within the said time if the petitioner failed to select any premises in Venkatapuram Village, the respondents are at liberty not to continue the licence.

¶18

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, this appeal is filed.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

The petitioner knew about the notification where Venkatapuram Village only was notified for grant of the licence and the same would also be evident from the application submitted by the petitioner in Form A-3(A), which is annexed at page 47 of the petition. Though the petitioner contends that he has been carrying on the business in Haripuram Village, precisely next to the place where the previous licensee in respect of the Venkatapuram village used to run the business, but it is not in dispute that the village notified by the State authorities is Venkatapuram only.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause notice has also been issued to the petitioner, which was duly replied to by the petitioner on 28.7.2012 and in the said reply he stated that Haripuram Village covers Venkatapuram Village also.

¶22

In the circumstances, since a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his reply, we direct the respondent authorities to pass an appropriate order in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law. Since pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, respondent No.2 passed an order on 9.8.2012 extending the provisional licence of Sl.No.310 at Venkatapuram, till 3.9.2012 and instructing the petitioner to select suitable premises in Venkatapuram Village as per orders of Hon’ble Single Judge and obtain original licence on or before 3.9.2012, it is desirable that the respondent authorities shall pass the order in the matter before 3.9.2012.

¶23

We do not intend to interfere with the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge excepting modifying the order to the above extent.

¶24

The writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶26

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 29.8.2012 bnr Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. (B.O) bnr

Dantuluri Venkata Ramana Raju, v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dantuluri Venkata Ramana Raju, v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam

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

Ranikreddy Mahalaksmi Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District at

Sri Koripella Sai Lashmana Rao, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Gorantla Jhansi Lakshmi Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District

C. Venkat Reddy Vs M. Srinivas

Joint Family Firm of M.C.Dhanraj and Sons, Vs P.D.K.Wad

P. Jeyashree Prabhakar Vs District Educational Officer