THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21757 of 2011 Dated: 04.08.2011 Between: Muppavarapu Sarada Devei ..... PETITIONERS AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.,. by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21757 of 2011 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s request for renewal of the Bar licence vide Rc.No.719/600/A2 dated 01.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. The material available on record shows that an objection was raised by the Audit party of Accountant General, A.P. against functioning of the Bar and Restaurant in question on the ground that the licensed premises is situated within a distance of 20 meters from Akshara International School which attracted prohibition under Rule 6(1) (ii) of A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005. Alleging that though the said objection was brought to the notice of the petitioner, she failed to make the licensed premises suitable in conformity with the statutory rules, the impugned order came to be passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the 3rd respondent has no power or authority to pass the impugned order, since as per Rule 5 (6) read with Rule 11 and 9-A of A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise alone is the competent authority. It is to be noticed that Rule 9-A provides that the renewal can be granted either by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise concerned or any other Officer authorised by the Commissioner. The learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise has placed before this Court the circular dated 21.06.2011, which shows that the Prohibition Excise Superintendents are authorised to renew the bar licence. Hence, the petitioner’s contention that the 3rd respondent is not competent to pass the order under challenge cannot be accepted. So far as the ground upon which the impugned order came to be passed is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have come to the conclusion that the bar in question is situated within the prohibited distance without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that even the distance was measured behind the back of the petitioner. As could be seen from the pleadings, the specific case of the petitioner is that there is another entrance, which is being used at present for ingress and egress, and that the said alternative passage is at a distance of 110 meters from the school. Having regard to the said plea of the petitioner,. I am of the opinion that it is necessary to give an opportunity to the petitioner to make her representation before disposing of her application for renewal of licence. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to get the distance between the school and the licensed premises measured in terms of Explanation to Rule 6(2) of the Rules, in the presence of the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 04.08.2011 Note: Issue C.c. in two days. KLP/ISL