Dismissed

Mrs. K. Lakshmi Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Mar 2022WP/3285/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the renewal of a bar license due to missing lease and non-consideration of objections. Court held merits lie with the District Officer and dismissed the writ, granting liberty to challenge the lower authority's order.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; liberty granted to challenge the order dated 07.12.2021 by the District Prohibition and Excise Officer.

Mrs. K. Lakshmi Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT i^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} iSp""irt^{OriginalJ urisdiction)}

¶2

WEDNESDAY '^_ ,THE^{SECONDDAY OF IV1ARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶5

WRI T PETITI N NO:^{328s oF?022}

¶6

Between: It/rs. R/o, VilK. a Lakshmi No.18,^{BanYa n Devi,W/o. K. TreeRetreat, Thum malur Ganchi'Aged about. 64 Village, Years'Mah eswaram Occ: Housewife,tlilandal,} I Ranga eddy District^{- 50135}

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND 1. TheR cveState nue, of^{Excise Telangllana, Department,RepbYGovt. of Tits PrinciP al elangana Secretary, Secreta riat, HyderabadDeP artmentof}

¶9

2 TneiCommissioner^{of Prohibition and Excise' Abkari Building'Nampally'} Hvd'erabad,^{Telangana State'}

¶10

3 f n"lo, Commisisoner^{of Prohibition and Excise' Abkari Building'Nampally} Hvd'eranad,^{Telanganastale}

¶11

f n"ls rp"rint"ndent^{of P-rohibitionand Excise' Abkari Building'Nampally}

¶12

4 Hvderabad,^{TelanganaState}

¶13

5 rn"lcr"dt"|.^{Hyderabad tVlunicipalcorporatron fep,by its Dy'commissioner} Havins^{its offrce at euona i[J;a;- rairieunoRoab Hvderabad}

¶14

6 rnelDirectorate Hvderabad^{lvlunicipal Co'por"aiion of Enforcement' Vigilance tiavingits andnrsaster off ice at Budha B-havan TankN'4anaoementGreater} Lli,;; A;;;,^{Htdeiabad Represented bv its Director'}

¶15

7 vlslLuUitee Dine Sail{iran Reddv,^{s/o Restaurant and c. r'r"iiii'i"'H"'dljv'"p'g"d Bar' Rep.byits Proprietor aboJt35 vears' N'4r' Gurramocc} Buslness,^{R/o. H.No.2-1l1 dljiiirni''o'viirZge Batap"Mandal'Ranga} Redd^y District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Peti ion under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndiaPraYing that in the} circumstad^{ces stated in the affidav it filed therewith,the HighCourt maYbe} ction. more Partlcularly^{onein the nature of} pleased t^{oissue a Writ,} d ecla^{Order ring the or Direaction of resPondents in renewlnglicense for} Writ runnlngof^{L4andamus,bar andrestaurant for the Year 2021-} dent^{No.72022, wrthout executed anY validbY the Petitioner Registeredln} in favour^{of theResPon} lease contrarY^{d eedto rules 6 and 9-A of Telanga na Excise(Grant} therebY^{of License not consoidering f seling thebY} Bar and bondit^{ions of License)Rule} s,2005 and further^lettingthe t. 27.10.2021 d by the Petitioner^D objectio^{nslra rse}

¶18

I I I I I 1 I

¶19

responde^{t No.7 run the bar andrestaurant without valid licenseis highly illegal'} nd in violation^{of G.O Ms. No'134,Dl. 13.12.2019and againstthe} arbitrarysettled^{pnciples oflaw and againstPrinciples ofnatural justiceand} conseque tlv^{direct the official respondents to cancel the bar license or anY other} licenses rthey ear^{2021-2022 issuedin favour of ResPondentNo.7 bY duly} consideri n the o bjections^{raised bY the Petitionerpending disPosal of main} petition.

¶20

lA NO: 2 F 2022

¶21

Peti\ion I under^{Section 151 CPC praying} that in the circumstances^stated in implead the affidavit^t propfiled osedⁱⁿ ResPondents^{supportof the No. petition B as Pat} he^{rty respondent No.8} High Qourt^{may be in} Pleased^{the marnto} writ^petitio as well as^{in all miscellaneouspetitions.} I IA NO 1 F 2022 Peti Ition under^{Section 151 CPC PraYingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affid avit^{filed in support of the petition,the High CourtmaYbe Pleasedto} direct the fflcial respondents^{to cancel the bar license or any other licenses for} the year^{221- 2022 issued in favour of ResPondentNo.7 by duly consideringthe} objections^{raised by the petitioner, pending disposal of main WritPetition}

¶22

Counsel r the Petitioner^{: SRl. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES}

¶23

Counsel r the Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 4 : GP FORPROHIBITIONEXCISE} Counsel r the Respondent^{Nos. 5 & 6 : SRISAMPATHPRABHAKAR REDDY '} SC FOR MC,

¶24

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶25

THE HON,BLE DT. ]USTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶26

V,.'IT PE TITION No.3285 OF 2022

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ oF Mandamus to declare the action of responcjent authorities in renewing the licence of the unofflcial respondent No.7 for running bar and restaurant for the year 202I-22, without any valid registered lease deed in favour oF the unofficial respondent No.7; in not considerinq the objections, dated 27.I0.202L, raised by the petitioner and further, letting the unofFicial respondent No.7 to run bar and restaurant without valid licence, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of G.O.lvls.No.134, dated 13.72.2019, and consequently, to direct the respondent authorities to cancel the bar licence or any other licence lssued in favour of the unofficial respondent No.7 for the year 2027-22, by considering the objections of the petitioner.

¶29

2, Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the reco rd

¶30

3, Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing H.No.B-2-293l82l A/115, Plot No.115, Road No.10, Jubilee^{Hills, Hyderabad, situated in} Survey No.120^{(New) of Shaikpet Villageand Survey No'102/1of} Hakimpet Village, Golkonda^{Taluk. The petitionerhas leased the}

¶31

l)i'.S,.l \ 1)^{() ''!--,t:{)ll}

¶32

subject^property to the unofficial^{respondentNo.7for a period of four} from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.202..^{Thereafter,the} years commenclng petitioner has not extended the lease, as the^{unotficialrespondent} No.7 is using the subject^property for^illegal activities.^{Even after} expiry of lease^period, the^{unofficialrespondentNo.7 illegally} continued in^possession of the^{subject property. Since there is no} valid lease in favour of unofficial^{respondentNo.7 in respect of the} subject^{property, particularly} a^{registered lease deed, the petitioner} made a representation, dated^{27.7O.2027, to the respondent} authorities requesting not to renew^{the licence of the unofficial} respondent No.7 to run bar and^{restaurant in the subject property,in} terms of G.O.Ms,No.134,^{Revenue (Excise-1IDepartment),dated} L3.L2.2019. In spite of the^{same, the respondent No.2 renewed the} licence of t'he unofficial^{respondent No.7 and ultimately,prayed to} cancel the ticence issued in favour of the unofficial^{respondentNo.7.}

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, on instructions, would submit that the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.10.2021", was examined and disposed of vide Cr.No.B4lSpl/zl2[/DPEOfr, dated 07.72.2027, by the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Hyderabad. The petitioner has to challenge the said order, dated 07.t2.202L Therefore, the

¶34

¶35

Dr.SA.J W.P.No.328-s of 2022

¶36

petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for in this Writ Petition

¶37

Admittedly, a copy of the order, dated 07.t2.2021, is placed before this Court. A perusal of the said order, dated 07.12.2021, discloses that the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Hyderabad, had examined the representation, dated 27.L0.202L, of the petitloner and observing that the request of the petitioner is not tenable, disposed of the said representation. In view of these circumstances, it is not appropriate to this Court to express any opinion in relation to the merits of the case. The petitioner has to challenge the said order, dated 07.L2.2021.

¶38

Granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order, dated 07 .12.2027, in Cr. No. B4lSpl/202t/DPEOH, passed by the District Prohibitlon and Excise Officer, Hyderabad, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition

¶40

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTA REGISTRAR I ,TRUE COPY/i SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To, 1. The Principal Secretary,^{Departmenl of Revenue, Excisell Department'Govt} ofT :langana Secretariat,^{State of Telangana,Hyderabad-}

¶43

1. the Corimissione,^{of Prohibition and Excise,Abkari Building'Nampally'} Hvd :rabad, Telangana^State.

¶44

The Dy. Commisisoner^{of Prohibition and Excise,Abkari Building, Nampally} Hvd rabad, Telangana^State

¶45

4 The Superintendent^{of Prohib} ition and Excise,^{Abkari Buildin} g, Nampally Hydbrabad, Telangana^State.

¶46

Cwrf-

¶47

The Greater Hyderabad N4unicipal Corporation, Reo b y its Dy.Commissioner Ha ng its office at Budha Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad

¶48

The Directorate of Enforcement, Vigilance and Disast er l,4anagement Greater Hvd rabad Municipal Corporation Having its office at Budha B hava n, Tank Bu Road, Hyderabad. Represented by its Director.

¶49

/. tvvs ubilee Dine Restaurant and Bar, Rep by its pro pr etor Mr. Gurram

¶50

Sai iran Reddy, s/o. G. Narsimha Reddy, Aged abo ut. 35 years, Occ Bus ness, R/o. H.No.2-'1l1 , Gurramguda Vi llage, Balapur IVlandal, Ranga R y District

¶51

On CC to SRl. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES, Advocate.[OpUC]

¶52

On CC tO SRI SAIVPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY. SC FOR bHA/C

¶53

Ad cate. IOP UC]

¶54

10 7 CCs to GP FOR PROHIB|TION EXC|SE, High Court for the State of Tel ngana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶55

1. T CD Copies

¶56

On Spare Copy

SB BS

\ I I

HIGH^CO RT

I I 1 t 1 \ \ \

0312022 DATED:O

ORDER

WP.No.32^{5 oi 2022}

DISPOSIN O OT TNE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

I' f w

Mrs. K. Lakshmi Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. K. Lakshmi Devi v. The State of Telangana

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

Mohammed Shareef Uddin Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mr Irshad Mohammed Vs Mr C Sudarshan Reddy IAS and 3 others

Smt. P. Eshwaramma Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

R.Kala Bai Vs The State of Telangana

Erikilla Purushotham Vs The State of Telangana and 10 Others

Sriram NarayanaRao Vs The Government of India