IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15161 of 2008 Between: 1 M.Raghava Reddy S/o.Chenga REddy R/o.Door No..8-204, Plot No.135, New Balaji Colony, Tirupathi, Chittoor District 2 D.Sharavan Kumar S/o.D.Ramamurthy R/o.18-1-747, Balaji Avenue, Bhavani Nagar Tirupathi, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, prohibition and Excise Department, Rep.by Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad 2 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent Tirupati, Chittoor District 3 Y.Srinivasulu Reddy S/o.Y.Venkata Subba Reddy R/o.D.No.13-1-47, P.K.Street, Tirupati Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not granting licence in favour of the 2nd petitioner herein to run the A-4 shop granted under the provisions of AP Excise(Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 by issuing an endorsement dated 30.6.2008 as illegal, arbitrary,and contrary to the rules and Consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant licence in favour of the 2nd petitioner herien to run the shop notiﬁed at Sl.No.225 in Chittoor District Gazette bearing shop No.7 situated at TP Area,Tirupati, Chittoor District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 15161 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: By an endorsement dated 30-06-2008, the 2nd respondent declined grant of A.4 License to the petitioners under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of license) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the 2005 Rules’) in view of the objections lodged by the 3rd respondent who was seen to be a co-owner along with the 1st petitioner of the premises bearing door No.14-2-201 of 14th Ward of Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, Tirupathi in respect of which premises the A.4 License was applied for. There are extant disputes between the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent with regard to the premises in question. The 1st petitioner and another ﬁled O.S.No. 240 of 1999 before the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati against the 3rd respondent (arrayed as the 2nd defendant) and another seeking inter alia the relief of a permanent injunction in respect of the same premises. In the suit initially relief speciﬁc performance of an agreement dated 27-01-1999 against the 1st defendant therein – one K. Vasudeva Reddy was sought. During the pendency of the suit however, it appears the 1st defendant K. Vasudeva Reddy executed a sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner and therefore the relief in the suit to the extent of speciﬁc performance was not pursued. O.S.No. 240 of 1999 was however dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 08-10-2007 wherein a conclusion was recorded that the 2nd defendant therein, the 3rd respondent herein is also a co-owner along with the 1st petitioner herein and therefore no injunction could be granted against a co- owner. The 1st petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree which is said to be pending. The 1st petitioner had an A.4 License in respect of the same premises during the previous two Excise Years. For this Excise Year, he wants to pursue business in partnership with the 2nd petitioner accordingly applied for A.4 License. In view of the strained relationship between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent lodged objections to the grant of A.4 License in favour of the petitioners. Thereupon the 2nd respondent recorded the impugned endorsement dated 30-06-2008 declining to grant license on the ground that the lease deed for the premises is not signed by one of the co-owners viz., the 3rd respondent herein who also appears to be the owner as per the municipal records. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners would state that it is not within the province of the 2nd respondent to make a detailed assessment as to whether the 3rd respondent has co-ownership rights in respect of the property in question. It is further contended that the casual observations recorded by the Civil Court in O.S.No. 240 of 1999 while dismissing the suit could not have been taken serious note of by the 2nd respondent. These are contentions that do not commend acceptance by this Court. The purpose of farming out of the exclusive privilege of the State in the vending of liquor qua the statutory rules made under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) is not to create a largesse to beneﬁt the traders in intoxicants. The primary purpose of the State regulations is to regulate the trade in this pejorative commodity as also to garner the resources for the exchequer. The decision making process by the regulatory authorities of the Excise Department is conditioned to this fundamental purpose of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Though the 2005 Rules per se and in terms do not enjoin or obligate the licensing authority to consider the entitlement of an applicant to a premises; integral to the purposes for which the power is conferred on the Excise authorities viz., safeguarding the public interest which is pejoratively impacted by this trade and with a view to ensure an uninterrupted business in the liquor when license is granted, during the currency of the license, the Licensing authority would be well within the spectrum of discretion to make a best judgment assessment of whether the premises in respect of which the license applied for is likely to be unhindered for the pursuit of the trade for which the license is granted. Such power and concomitant discretion must be conceded to the licensing authority for eﬀectuation of the purposes of the Act and the Rules. On this analysis, the reasons recorded in the endorsement impugned in the writ petition cannot be faulted. Qua the judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.No. 240 of 1999 to which admittedly and demonstrably the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent are parties, the co-ownership right of the 3rd respondent in the premises in question has been recognized. Hence the 2nd respondent can hardly be faulted for relying on the observations of a judicial authority recorded in a proceeding inter-parties. Further even in the municipal records the 3rd respondent is recorded as a co-owner along with the 1st petitioner. Therefore, the executive satisfaction of the 2nd respondent that the 3rd respondent has an interest in the premises in question cannot be characterized as perverse. It is based on some material and the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent is lawful. On the analysis above, there are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 08-08-2008 Pvks/*