HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPARAO W.A.No. 869 of 2010 Date: 06-04-2011 Between: K. Dhanalakshmi ……. Appellant and The Commissioner of Excise and Prohibition, A.P. Hyderabad and others ……. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPARAO W.A.No. 869 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR, J) The appellant herein, who is represented by the GPA holder who appeared as party-in-person, is an unsuccessful writ petitioner who seeks to file this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, inter alia, assailing the correctness of the orders of the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ in W.P.No.13488 of 2010 through the orders, dated 23-06-2010. The appellant is claiming to be an illiterate women belonging to backward class community, and having suffered all agonies and being denied of her legitimate entitlement under various other schemes, she filed the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Mandamus declaring the action of the authorities in allotting the wine shop license in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of Mutyalapalli village, Mogaltur Mandal, West Godavari District, as contrary to the Resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat and for issuance of consequential directions to issue the license in her favour for the excise year 2010-2012. Pathetically the appellant, no doubt, states that her husband by name Katta Mutyala Rao died on 01-07-2004 due to drowning in Upputeru drain during the raids conducted by the excise officials at the instance of the liquor syndicate. She is the only breadwinner in the family consisting of herself, her two daughters, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Even though she sought financial assistance from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund and there was a due recommendation, no amount has been paid and in fact the recommendation made by the District Collector was rejected. For allotment of wine shop licenses, the authorities have called for tenders for the relevant period through the notification on 27-05- 2010. The appellant has submitted representation to the gram panchayat for allotment of wine shop license in her favour. Accordingly, the gram panchayat passed twin Resolutions one after the other, on 21-04-2010 and 16-05-2010 recommending her case for grant of wine shop license. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a tender on 05-06-2010 and paid the E.M.D. by obtaining loans from third parties. However, since the contesting respondent offered highest bid amount of Rs.1,08,45,999/-, the license was knocked down in his favour and it was allotted to him. This, according to the appellant, is quite contrary to the recommendations and the Resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat, and hence, the same is liable to be set aside and the wine shop has to be allotted only to her. Hence, she filed the said writ petition. The writ petition was contested by the authorities and by the contesting respondent. The learned single Judge, by taking into consideration the relevant submissions from both sides, did not find favour with the indulgence as sought by the appellant on the ground that she has to show a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the Mandamus is sought and neither the A.P. Excise Act nor the Rules framed thereunder contemplate taking the view of the panchayats in respect of the allotment of shops to a particular category of persons, and therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the Appeal. In this appeal there have been relatively extended submissions even by placing reliance under Article 243-A of the Constitution of India and the Directive Principles and contending that in view of the Resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat repeatedly and also taking into consideration the miserable condition of the family of the appellant, it warrants only consideration of her case. These submissions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents herein. Ultimately what all boils down is as to whether there exits any enforceable right in favour of the appellant to seek such relief or even the license as sought for. There is no dispute in regard to the well established principles that dealing in the liquor is the exclusive subject of the government and there is no question of any fundamental right in respect of the citizens. Further the subject is squarely covered by the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder. In this regard neither Article 243-A of the Constitution of India nor the provisions of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act has got anything to do with it. Neither of these provisions contemplate in respect of grant of excise license in respect of liquor or even to have a say in this regard. The entire procedure, as contemplated thereunder, do specify the manner in which it has to be dealt with, but nothing concerns with any local body as such. Therefore, prima facie, we are of the view that neither the Resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the appellant nor she herself has any such enforceable right to seek any preferential claim for grant of license in respect of the wine shop. Except mentioning the above aspects, nothing has been shown as to how the appellant can seek any such claim. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in this appeal. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ V.SURI APPA RAO, J Date: 06-04-2011 YCR