IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.M.P.No.36575 of 2008 and W.P.Nos.25076 and 14797 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 25076 of 2008 Between: Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy S/o.Venkatasubba Reddy R/o.Door No.27-1-1084/B, Balajinagar, Nellore, Proprietor of Saritha Restaurant & Bar, Door No. 17/294-F, Achari Street, Barkass, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 Smt.Noone Krishnaveni W/o.N.Sainath R/o.D.No.16-3-281, Ganjikhana Ramalingapuram, Nellore - 524 003. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.329/2006/A4, dated 23.6.2008, refusing to grant renewal of Form-2B License under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005, in favour of the petitioner for running Bar and Restaurant in premises bearing No. 17-294-B & F, Achari Street, Nellore, belonging to the 4th respondent, the action of the 2nd respondent in Cr.No.6846/2008/CPE/T3, dated 2.7.2008, in directing the 3rd respondent to renew the license with a condition that the petitioner produces lease deed from the 4th respondent within one month, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, violative of principles of natural justice, as well as the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the Rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to renew the Form-2B Licencse in favour of the petitioner to run Bar and Restaurant in the aforesaid premises, without insisting for production of lease deed between the 4th respondent and the petitioner for the period for which renewal is sought and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 14797 of 2008 Between: Smt.noone Krishnaveni W/o. N. Sainadh R/o. H.No. 16-3-281, Ganji Khana, Ramalingapuram, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Anhra Pradesh,Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Proh. & Excise, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy S/o. Subba Reddy Nellore 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 any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing direction to respondent No.3 vide letter No. Cr.No. 6846/2008/CPE/T3 dt. 2-7-2008 is arbitrary illegal, and without jurisdiction and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.KAILASHNATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.M.P.No.36575 of 2008 and W.P.Nos.25076 and 14797 of 2008 Oral Common Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.M.P.No.36575 of 2008 and W.P.No.25076 of 2008, who is respondent No.4 in W.P.No.14797 of 2008; Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in W.P.M.P.No.36575 of 2008 and W.P.No.25076 of 2008, who is petitioner in W.P.No.14797 of 2008; and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, for respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.M.P.No.36575 of 2008 as well as W.P.Nos.25076 and 14797 of 2008. 2. W.P.No.14797 of 2008 is filed by the landlady seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing direction to respondent No.3 vide letter, dated 02-7-2008, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. On the other hand, W.P.No.25076 of 2008 is filed by the tenant/licencee seeking a declaration that the proceedings of respondent No.3 in Rc.No.329/2006/A4, dated 23-6-2008, refusing to grant renewal of Form-2B Licence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, in favour of the petitioner for running Bar and Restaurant in premises bearing No.17-294-B & F, Achari Street, Nellore, belonging to respondent No.4; and the action of respondent No.2 in Cr.No.6846/2008/CPE/T3, dated 02-7-2008, in directing respondent No.3 to renew the licence with a condition that the petitioner produces lease deed from respondent No.4 within one month, as arbitrary and illegal; and consequently direct respondents 1 to 3 to renew Form-2B Licence in favour of the petitioner to run Bar and Restaurant in the aforesaid premises, without insisting for production of lease deed between respondent No.4 and the petitioner for the period for which renewal is sought. 4. The petitioner in W.P.M.P.No.36575 of 2008 and W.P.No.25076 of 2008, who is respondent No.4 in W.P.No.14797 of 2008, is the tenant and respondent No.4 in W.P.M.P.No.36575 of 2008 and W.P.No.25076 of 2008, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.14797 of 2008, is the landlady; and respondents 1 to 3 in the miscellaneous petition as well as the writ petitions are official respondents. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this common order, the parties herein are referred to as “the tenant” and “the landlady”, respectively. 6. Though it is a dispute between the tenant and the landlady, the actual dispute is with regard to renewal of licence for running the Bar and Restaurant, subject to the condition that the tenant/licencee produces original lease deed to which, the landlady had objected to. As a result, the renewal of the said licence to the tenant was renewed for a limited period, subject to the condition that the lease deed should be produced within a month from the date of renewal. It is not in dispute that since there was no compliance in that regard, the competent authorities have prohibited the tenant from carrying out the business. 7. Be that as it may, both the tenant and the landlady had entered into an amicable settlement, subject to certain conditions. To that effect, W.P.M.P.No.36575 of 2008, under Order XXIII read with Section 151 C.P.C., has been filed before this Court, seeking to record the terms and conditions of the memorandum of compromise arrived at between the tenant and the landlady, and to dispose of the writ petitions directing respondent No.3 to grant renewal of Form-2B Licence in favour of the tenant. 8. The important condition in the said memorandum of compromise is that the licencee/petitioner in W.P.No.25076 of 2008 would vacate the premises and handover the vacant possession to the petitioner in W.P.No.14797 of 2008 on 01-7-2010, without claiming any goodwill or any sort of right over the premises. 9. For ready reference, relevant Conditions of the said memorandum of compromise, which are actually the source of giving a quietus to the litigation for the present, are extracted hereunder: “1. ………………………………………. 2. That the 4th respondent shall execute a lease deed in favour of the petitioner for said period forthwith. 3. ……………………………………….. 4. ……………………………………….. 5. ……………………………………….. 6. That the petitioner undertakes unconditionally to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession to the 4th respondent on 01.07.2010, without claiming any good will or any sort of right over the premises. 7. …………………………………………… 8. ……………………………………………” 10. In such an event, there remains nothing more to adjudicate in these two writ petitions. 11. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition W.P.M.P.No.36575 of 2008 is allowed and consequently both the writ petitions W.P.Nos.25076 and 14797 of 2008 are closed, in terms of the memorandum of compromise. 12. Registry is directed to append a copy of the memorandum of compromise, which shall form part of this common order. 13. However, the tenant is at liberty to make any representation or application to the appropriate authority under the Excise Laws, for remission of licence fee and in such an event, it is open for the authorities to consider the same, in accordance with law. 14. It is needless to say that the disposal of the writ petitions relates to the dispute is between the tenant and the landlady herein only. All other issues are left open, except the issue of renewal of lease up to 30-6-2010. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 22nd December, 2008. Ak ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}