IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 246 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 22629 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Ippili Durga Prasad S/o Gurunadha Rao R/o Palakonda, Srikakulum District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of A.P. Revenue (Excise) Department, rep by its Principal Secretary Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner & Prohibition of Excise, Government of A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise, Superintendent, Srikakulum District. 4 Vandana Rama Krishna Naidu S/o Late Chinnam Naidu, R/o Palakonda, Srikakulum District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.246 OF 2002 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2002 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.22629 of 2001 whereunder the writ petition was allowed in terms of the Judgment of this Court in VISHWANATHA RAVI KUMAR v. P.SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS[1]. The appellant herein is the fourth respondent in the writ petition and the writ petitioner is the fourth respondent herein. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The writ petitioner/ fourth respondent herein is an existing IL-24 licencee and operating the business under the name and style of ‘M/s.Devadas Wines’ Palakonda. He sought invalidation of the order of the State Government in G.O. Rt.No.3009 Revenue (Excise-III) Department dated 23.10.2001 whereby the application dated 13.02.2001 of the appellant treated as a revision petition and the same was allowed directing the appellant to establish his shop at another location at Door No.4-274, Palakonda, Srikkulam District. The appellant’s IL-24 licence, which was granted to him during the excise year 1998-99, was suspended by the third respondent herein on the premise that the premises were located within the prohibited distance from a place of education viz. a school, contrary to Rule 6 of the A.P. Excise (Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Retail Sale Condition of Licence) Rules, 1993. Challenging the order of suspension, the appellant earlier filed a writ petition before this Court which was ultimately dismissed granting liberty to him to submit a representation before the third respondent for shifting of the business premises. However, as the appellant failed to submit the details of the premises of the alternative location where the shop is to be established, the third respondent cancelled the appellant’s licence by order dated 17.11.1998, while refunding the proportionate licence fee to him. Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision petition on 13.02.2001 which was allowed by the first respondent simply stating that the matter was carefully examined and the Government took a lenient view. Aggrieved thereby, the fourth respondent herein filed the writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge, while observing that a similar question came to be considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.2679 of 2001 dated 27.11.2001 and batch reported in VISHWANATHA RAVI KUMAR v. P.SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS (referred to supra) and that an appeal preferred thereupon was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1930 of 2001 dated 19.12.2001, allowed the writ petition in terms of the said Judgment. In view of the above fact that the matter is squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court in VISHWANATHA RAVI KUMAR v. P.SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS (referred to supra), confirmed in appeal, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 04.01.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.22629 of 2001. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 3rd June, 2009. VGSR [1] 2001 (6) ALT 406