THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3670 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) Since common questions arise in these two matters, hence, taken up together for disposal. The appellants in W A No. 380 of 2009 are unsuccessful writ petitioners who filed the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, interalia aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W P No. 2417 of 2009 dated 17.3.2009 dismissing the writ petition, where they sought for writ of mandamus in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the first respondent in proceedings dated 16.2.2009 to consider the request of the 4th respondent herein for grant of 2-B licence at Venkatagiri as illegal and for further direction not to accord permission to 4th respondent for establishment of such bar and restaurant. In W P No. 3670 of 2009, the petitioners are invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent therein in processing the application of the 4th respondent therein for grant of 2B licence in premises bearing D No. 28/1354, Venkateswarapuram, Nellore, Potti Sreeramulu district for establishment of bar and restaurant as illegal and for consequential direction not to grant any such licence. The case of the appellants/writ petitioners in W A No. 380 of 2009 in short is that they are holding A-4 licence under A P Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence ) Rules, 2005 ( for short Rules, 2005) for the excise year 2006-08 and 2008-2010 in respect of ward NO.17 and ward no.16 at Venkatagiri, Nellore district. They have complied with the requirements in regard to payment and accordingly they are running the business. It is the case of the appellants/petitioners that at the time of auction of their licences, they were given to understand that no new licence for establishment of bar would be granted in the area for which licence is granted to them. Further, if any such licence is granted to other persons, their business will be affected. However, without notice to the appellants and without considering their case in a proper perspective in spite of their objections dated 9.2.2009, the authorities are granting 2-B licence to 4th respondent , therefore the action on the part of the authorities in issuing such licence is contrary to the promise made to them. Secondly being violation of principles of natural justice since no notice has been given and thirdly their objections remained unconsidered without any hearing or without any further orders being passed. In support the appellants/petitioners sought to place reliance on the judgment in Sahara India Firm Lucknow Vs Commissioner of Income Tax,Central[1] and Nagarjuna Construction company limited Vs Government of A.P[2], for the purpose of principle that principles of natural justice have to be followed. The case of the appellants/petitioners was sought to be contested by the authorities as well as 4th respondent denying each and every allegation and pointing out the procedure as contemplated under Rules, 2005 which provide for regular enquiry and obtaining a report from the concerned authorities apart from police and municipality and therefore following such due procedure only the licence is being granted to 4th respondent in form 2-B , that apart, the licence as held by the appellant and that is being granted to 4th respondent totally stand on different lines and different provisions and therefore the appellants/petitioners have no locus much less any right to raise any objection, hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court by elaborately taking into consideration the respective contentions and also the pleadings as set forth by them, dismissed the writ petition while proceeding to hold that A-4 licence and 2- B licence are totally different and they are being granted under two different rules and further the learned Single Judge also sought to place reliance on the judgment of another learned Single Judge in W P No. 14561 of 2008 dated 30.7.2008, wherein it was held as follows; “While the petitioners have been granted Form A4 licenses under Shop Rules, the 4th respondent has been granted license under Form IIB under the Bar Rules. There is nothing either in either of the two sets of Rules which references the number of licences that may be granted under one set of Rules with the number of licenses granted under the other set of Rules. The licenses under the Bar and Shop Rules presumptively operate in different orbits. The licenses granted under the Shop Rules is to cater to customers who do not consume liquor in the licensed premises, but carry away the liquor in the permitted containers for consumption elsewhere. The customers of the Form IIB licencees however consume the liquor within the licensed premises. The rule making authority therefore presumptively did not consider it appropriate to dovetail the two sets of licenses, between the two sets of licensees. It is not within the province of this court to incorporate a regulatory mechanism in a context the appropriate authority has considered none to be warranted.” That apart, the learned Single Judge also held that the appellants/petitioners have no right to object to grant of such licence in favour of 4th respondent, that the nature of business activity as contemplated under the license granted to the appellants and that of the 4th respondent are totally different, hence the appeal. In W P No. 3670 of 2009, the petitioners hold 2B licence under the Rules, 2005. The first petitioner is granted licence on 10.4.2007 and same being renewed and valid and second petitioner was also granted licence on 12.7.2008 and same is also in force. However, their licences are granted at Venkateswarapuram of Nellore municipal corporation. While so, the case of the petitioners is that the authorities are once again contemplating to grant 2B licences in favour of 4th respondent therein in pursuance of an application filed by him for establishment of bar and restaurant under the name of ‘Sri Venkateswar Restaurant and Bar’. On coming to know of the same, the petitioners herein have objected to the same by submitting representations and also met the concerned authorities personally and pointed out their objections, in spite of the same, the authorities are proceeding in a post haste manner to grant such license, whereas such action on the part of the authorities is totally illegal, since the licences which have been granted to the petitioners for bar and restaurant and retail outlet was duly done after notifying the same in the official gazettee, therefore, there could not have been any fresh licenses once again in favour of any third party, which should only hamper the business activity of the petitioners. Petitioners also allege that the authorities are proceeding to grant such license without following due procedure as contemplated under the Rules. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is mention in regard to civil suits filed in O S No.791 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore seeking injunction against raising illegal structures and also filed writ petitions in W.P. No. 14561 of 2008 and W P No. 2417 of 2009 where interim orders have been granted. Therefore, petitioners complain that the entire action is wholly illegal apart from being unjust and liable to be set aside. Similar to the above case, the contest on behalf of the respondents herein especially by the authorities and also the contesting respondent no.4 is reiteration on self same lines. It is stated that as per the Rules there is no restriction as such nor any person holding existing licence have any exclusive rights to seek any restraint against others being considered and granted licence. There is no fundamental right to exercise and therefore the claim of the petitioners on such apprehension is wholly unjustified and they have no locus of enforceable right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction, hence the writ petition is liable to be set aside. Shorn of all these details in both the matters, the facts which emerge is to the effect that in both these cases, the petitioners are holding licence granted under Excise Act and rules made thereunder, one for A-4 licence and another in form 2B. The complaint is based on their exclusive nature of business to which they are entitled to carry on without any disturbance in any manner by granting any other licence in their area of operation. Further, the action on the part of the authorities to grant such fresh licence is totally without giving any notice and opportunity to them, hence, is violative of principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition succinctly has gone into the details of the rules governing under the Rules, 2005 for grant of form 2B licences and there is no serious dispute on the part of the appellants even in this case on the principle that licence issued under A-4 totally stand on a different footing and different rules whereas license issued in form 2B stands on different note and under different rules. Apart from the licence being under different conspectus of law governing nature of business and also makes a distinction in respect of vending of the commodity. Therefore, there being no dispute in regard to such an approach in law, it cannot be said that the petitioners in one sphere can make any complaint for grant of licence in another sphere, for which they have no concern. It is now well established that no individual has any right fundamental or otherwise enforceable in a Court of law in respect of business in liquor. The entire gamut of exercise vest in the state and governed under the provisions of A P Excise Act and rules made thereunder. In view of the same, the only question for consideration is whether there is any violation in the procedure contemplated before grant of licence for consideration as such. In this case, except making bald allegations no specific averment has been made nor mentioned in regard to nature of violation or rule which is alleged to have been violated, therefore, we do not find any substance in the later submissions. Coming back to the aspect as to the locus eve in W P No. 3670 of 2009 the petitioners though held similar such licence in form 2B are now aggrieved against grant of licence once again in form 2B to 4th respondent therein. Even for considering such an objection, the pointer which falls back against the writ petition is about their locus and right which is guaranteed either under the law or constitution and enforceability thereon. There is no question of any one drawing the twine with each other or raise any objection. It is for the authorities and the State who had to act as contemplated under the rules made thereunder for grant of licence and operation thererof. In the circumstances, we are of the view that as rightly held by the learned single Judge there is no such enforceable right much less locus on the part of writ petitioners/ appellants in W A No 380 of 2009. Coming to W P No. 3670 of 2009, it is also pointed out on behalf of the contesting respondent to the effect that in fact the petitioners had approached the civil Court by filing different suits and sought for injunction and now once again sought to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only with a view to hamper the interests rather than for bonafide prosecution. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners in W P No. 3670 of 2009 have filed suits in O S No. 1575 of 2007 and O S No. 791 of 2008 and also filed other writ petitions. In the circumstances it is not open for the petitioners to agitate such questions invoking jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, apart from locus, on merits also we do not find any bonafides on the objections of the petitioners. For the reasons as mentioned above, we hold that there are no bonafides in the approach of the appellants/writ petitioners in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to interdict the proceedings for grant of licence. Accordingly, the writ appeal and writ petition are dismissed. We make it clear that interim orders granted pending these proceedings, automatically stand vacated. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ______________________ B SESHASAYANA REDDY,J DATE: -04-2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3670 OF 2009 PD JUDGMENT FOR PERUSAL OF HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B SESHASAYANA REDDY [1] 2008-TLPRE-0-604 [2] 2008-TLPRE-0-1641