HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.15669 of 2007 Dated: February 7, 2008 Between: M/s. Chanakya Wines, rep. by its Proprietor, Tungala Sudhakara Babu, S/o. Rama Prasada Rao, aged about 34 years, R/o.2-41/4, Avanigadda village and Mandal, Krishna District, and others. … Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents Order: Petitioners, who are licencees for selling Indian liquor and foreign liquor, by shop, have filed this writ petition seeking Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to act in accordance with Rule (4) of A.P. Excise (Grant of licence of selling by bar and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules) and forbear from granting licence to the fifth respondent to run a bar & restaurant at Avanigadda, Krishna District. 2. The grant of licence for sale of Indian liquor and foreign liquor by shop, and establishment of a bar & restaurant are governed by statutory rules framed under Section 72 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’). The grant of retail licence and establishment of a shop are governed by statutory rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.998, Revenue (EX.II) Department dated 24-05-2005 and the grant of licence for selling liquor by bar is governed by the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.997 dated 20-05-2005. Petitioners herein are licensees for wine shops, namely Shop Nos.72, 73 and 74, in Avanigadda, Krishna District, and their licences are valid till the end of June, 2008. These licenses were granted to the petitioners as they were the highest bidders in the auctions conducted for grant of such licences. As per the Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.997, for grant of licence to establish a bar, the person intending to establish a bar, at first instance, has to submit an application in Form-1A to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and has to obtain prior clearance in Form-2A as per Rule 5 (1) & (2) of the Rules. The Commissioner, who is the competent authority as per the Rules, having regard to requirement and other factors, he deems fit, may grant a prior clearance in Form-2A. The holder of prior clearance in Form -2B is eligible to apply for grant of licence in Form-2B to run a bar and the Deputy Commissioner of Excise is the authority to grant such licence. 3. The fifth respondent herein submitted application dated 12-07- 2007 in Form-1A seeking prior clearance from the second respondent, Commissioner, under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, for establishment of bar and restaurant in Avanigadda, Krishna District. The second respondent had granted such clearance by proceedings dated 13-07- 2007 and the same was valid for a period of 45 days from the date of issue. Before grant of licence under Form-2B, this writ petition has been filed questioning the steps being taken by the respondents, on the application of the fourth respondent. 4. The case of the petitioners is that Rule 4 of the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.997, is applicable for grant of bar licences, in Form-2B and licence in Form-2B, to run a bar & restaurant, can be granted only in municipalities and within a belt area of 2 kms of the periphery of such municipalities, municipal corporations and within a belt area of 5 kms of the periphery of such municipal corporations and in tourism centers (except places of religious tourism) as notified by the Department of Tourism of the State Government or Central Government. Petitioners’ grievance is that Avanigadda, where they are running wine shops, is neither a municipality nor a corporation and is also not within the periphery of a municipality or municipal corporation. It is alleged that the said place is not a tourism center within the meaning of Rule 4 of the rules and in spite of the same, the application of the fifth respondent for grant of bar licence, is being processed for extraneous reasons and considerations. 5. Counter affidavit is filed by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and a separate counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent. In the counter affidavits, while generally denying the various allegations made by petitioners, it is stated that the Department of Tourism has issued G.O.Ms.No.5, Youth, Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Tourism) Department dated 18-12-1998, identifying certain places as tourism centers. It is stated that as per the tourism policy notified in the said G.O., Avanigadda is notified as a tourism center by the Department of Tourism. As such, steps taken by the respondents on the application filed by the fifth respondent are in conformity with Rule 4 of the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.997 dated 20-05-2005. To the same effect is also the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, in which it is stated that petitioners, only to prevent grant of licence to the fifth respondent, have approaches this court and filed this writ petition by making false averments. 6. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise for respondents 1 to 4 and also Sri V. Jagapathi for the fifth respondent. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that as much as no notification was issued, notifying Avanigadda as a tourism center, by way of publication in the official Gazette, as contemplated under Section 2(23) of the Act, no licnece can be granted to run a bar & restaurant. He further submits that in absence of publication of notification in the official Gazette, as defined under the Act, Avanigadda cannot be treated as a tourism center for grant of bar licence. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.N. Guruswamy V. The State of Mysore and others[1]. 8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri V. Jagapathi for the fifth respondent submit that as per the Rules, grant of bar licence is permissible in tourism centers as notified by the Department of Tourism of the State Government or the Central Government. They submit that as much as the Department of Tourism has notified vide G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 18-12-2998, identifying Avanigadda as a tourism center, bar & restaurant can be established in the said place in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules. 9. With reference to the aforesaid contentions, the only issue that is to be considered for disposal of this writ petition is, whether a licence can be granted for establishing a bar & restaurant at Avanigadda? As per Rule 4 of the Rules, a licence in Form-2B, to run a bar can be granted in municipalities, municipal corporations and within a belt area of 2 kms of the periphery of such municipalities, municipal corporations and within a belt area of 5 kms of the periphery of such municipal corporations. Apart from the same, licence can also be granted in tourism centers except in places of religious tourism, as notified by the Department of Tourism. Though the word ‘notification’ is defined under Section 2(23) of the Act, to the effect that it means a notification to be published in the official Gazette, but the word ‘notification’ referred to in Rule 4 of the Rules is as per the Department of Tourism of the State Government. There is no provision for identifying tourism centers under the Scheme of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The word ‘notification’ as defined under Section 2(23) of the Act is confined for the purposes where notification is required to be issued to carry out the provisions of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. But, a reading of Rule 4 of the Rules would make it clear that establishment of a bar is permissible in tourism centers which are notified by the Department of Tourism of the State Government or Central Government. A perusal of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 18-12-1998 makes it clear that Avanigadda is a place which is notified as a tourism center by the Department of Tourism of the State Government and in view of the same it is permissible for the licencing authority to grant licence in Form-2B, to establish a bar & restaurant at the said place. 10. Though learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court referred supra, it is to be seen that the same had arisen under the provisions of the Mysore Excise Act, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, under the Rules framed under the Mysore Excise Act, licence can be granted by issuing a notification to be published in the official Gazette to give notice to the public in general. The notification referred to in the said judgment is a notification as per the provisions of the Mysore Excise act. In view of the specific Rule framed in this regard in G.O.Ms.No.997 dated 20-05- 2005, under Rule 4 of the Rules, framed under the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In any event, it is for the respondent-authorities to consider the same. Even before grant of such licence, it is not for the rival traders to decide the eligibility for grant of licence to the fifth respondent. Under the Scheme of the Act, for aggrieved persons there are remedies by way of appeal and revision. Hence, petitioners cannot seek any directions by way of Mandamus questioning the proposed grant of licence in favour of the fifth respondent, at this stage. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 7, 2008 MRR [1] AIR 1954 SC 592