Dismissed

Bomma Sammi Reddy v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Telangana HC9 Oct 2013WP/28992/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a writ petition challenging the proposed shift of an A4 retail shop by a respondent-licensee. The petitioner-opposition raised objections regarding business impact and mandatory notices in scheduled areas. The Court held the petition premature as the competent authority had not yet taken a decision on the shifting application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as premature on the ground that no administrative decision on the application to shift the shop had been passed.

Bomma Sammi Reddy Vs The Commissioner of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.28992 of 2013

¶2

Dated 0 9 th October, 2013

¶3

Between: Bomma Sammi Reddy and others and

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others

¶6

…Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioners: Ms.V.Jayasree

¶8

for Sri C.Damodar Reddy

¶9

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Prohibition & Excise

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in seeking to permit respondent No.4 to shift his A4 retail shop from Ladnapur, Godavari Khani Mandal to Yaminipally, Mahamutharam Mandal, Kharimnagar District as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

The petitioners are the A4 licensees of Garepally and Gangaram Villages of Kataram Mandal, Karimnagar District. Respondent No.4, who is running his shop at Ladnapur Village filed an application before respondent No.1 seeking permission to shift his A4 shop from the existing place to Yaminipally Village. The petitioners are stated to have made a representation to respondent No.1 on 27.09.2013 raising objections for shifting of the shop by respondent No.4 on the ground that if the shop is permitted to be shifted, their business will be seriously affected.

¶14

At the hearing, Ms.V.Jayasree, learned counsel, representing Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that Yaminipally Village is a scheduled area and that without the resolution passed by the Grama Sabha, location of shop by way of shifting cannot be permitted.

¶15

The learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise submitted that so far, no decision for shifting of the A4 shop of respondent No.4 is taken and that since shifting of the shop from one Mandal to another Mandal is involved, the application of respondent No.4 is forwarded to the State Government and that the same is under the consideration of the Government. He further submitted that Yaminipally Village is not located in a scheduled area and that therefore, Grama Sabha resolution is not required. The learned Government Pleader further stated that the distance between Yaminipally and the places at which the petitioners have been running their A4 shops is 16 kms and that therefore, the petitioners’ apprehension that their businesses will be affected by such shifting is unfounded.

¶16

From the facts noted above, it is clear that so far, no decision has been taken by the competent authority on the application of respondent No.4. Therefore, the writ petition is premature. If and when an order is passed in favour of respondent No.4, the petitioners are entitled to avail appropriate remedy. Therefore, it is unnecessary for this Court to delve into various aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶17

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioners as above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35997 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

09^th October, 2013 VGB

¶19

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

Bomma Sammi Reddy v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bomma Sammi Reddy v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

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

M. Bhupathi Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

M/s. Siddardha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri.Ch.v.v.S.Prasad

Dondapati Laxmaiah Vs The District Collector, Khammam.

A.Asha Bhai, Vs The Arbitrator under the National Highway Act, 1956 Cum

Shaik Chand Basha Vs The District Collector

Bandla Mutta Rao, Vs Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization