IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14445 of 2008 Between: Badi Reddy Naga Raju S/o. Pydithalli R/o. 2-10, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Visakhapatnam 3 The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District. 4 B. Raja Babu S/o. & Age not known R/o. 1-141, Sabbavaram (V & Mandal) Visakhapatnam 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 order or direction more particularly one in the 1st and 2nd Respondents allotted Wine Shop to the 4th Respondent situated at the House of Gandi Narayana Babu, Main Road of Sabbavaram ( V& M) Visakhapatnam District is illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and against to the principles of Natural Justice by violating the Prohibition and Excise Rules 18, 19 and 22 and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to cancel/set-aside the License obtained by the 4th Respondent for erecting/running Wine Shop in the name and Style of Friends Wines, situated at 1-141, Gandi Narayana Babu House, Main Road, Sabbavaram Village & Mandal , Visakhapatnam District and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KARRI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein it has been alleged that respondent No.4 is having a liquor shop within the vicinity of a Temple and a School, and, therefore, the licence to sell liquor has been given in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005. A counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by respondent No.2 denying the allegations leveled in the petition. It has been speciﬁcally submitted that the licence has been given to respondent No.4 to sell liquor in accordance with the aforestated Rules. It has been further submitted in the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled that the distance between the Government School as well as the Shivalayam and the liquor shop is more than 100 meters. Looking to the above fact, it cannot be said that the licence has been granted in violation of the aforestated Rules and, therefore, the petition is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th September, 2008 GRR