IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1100 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/08/2008 in WP NO : 17029 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sai Restaurant &Bar D.No.16-5-19 Kandukur Municipality Prakasam District rep.by its Licenee Sri Podapati Srinivasa Rao S/o.Malakondaiah, Kondamudusupalem(V),Kandukur(M) Prakasam District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Govt of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Excise-II) Department Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Govt Of A.P(Excise Bhavan) J.N.Road Nampally Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Nellore Division at Nellore District 4 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent Markapuram at Markapuram,Prakasam District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1100 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) The appellant herein is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, who by way of this appeal, seeks to assail the orders of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition, where he sought to assail the orders of the second respondent in Cr.No. 7576/2008/CPE/T3 dated 25.7.2008 in rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of 2 B licence as illegal. Brieﬂy stated facts are that the appellant /petitioner was having licence of Bar and Restaurant for the excise year 2004-05 and 2005-06, however for the excise year 2006-07 he could not possibly renew the same, therefore he made an application for renewal of the said licence for the later years. Under the impugned orders dated 25.7.2008, the second respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that there is no such need. Assailing the same, petitioner filed W.P. No.17029 of 2008. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the reasons as given and especially in view of the fact that the appellant has no fundamental right, did not ﬁnd favour with the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal. Having heard the learned counsel on either sides, and on perusal of the material, the admitted facts are that the case of the petitioner is not a totally virgin application, he was having licence for two prior years immediately preceding the year for which he made an application, since there was a break in between. Now it is pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant that subsequently, the authorities have been granting such similar licences in various parts of the State and that there are no rules contemplating for issuance of such speciﬁc number of licences in a particular area to run bar and restaurant and the ground on which the request of the petitioner is rejected, is totally void. We are totally in agreement with the contention urged on behalf of the appellant. Rule 5 (2) of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005 does not contemplate for such speciﬁc number of licences to be given in a particular area. So long as there is no such limit, more so when the appellant is having similar such licence for the earlier years, there is no impediment for the respondents to reject the request of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.8.2008 and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 25.7.2008 are hereby set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the application of the appellant afresh on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ R. KANTHA RAO,J DATE:22.10.2008 Tvk