THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21642 of 2011 Dated: 05.09.2011 Between: M.Narasimha Rao, Guntur. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21642 of 2011 O R D E R : The 3rd respondent is a Bar and Restaurant located at premises bearing No.1-4-120, D.No.236/B, Ward No.18, Block No.22, T.S.No.1742/2, Gujjanagundla area of Guntur City and District. The licence in Form 2B granted in favour of the 3rd respondent under the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of sale by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) has been renewed for the year 2011-2012 by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 30.06.2011. The premises bearing No.1-4-120 originally belonged to one P.Sambasiva Rao and the same was let out for the purpose of running the 3rd respondent Bar and Restaurant vide lease deed dated 11.07.2006 and the same is valid up to 30.06.2016. The writ petitioner claims to have purchased the said premises from P.Sambasiva Rao under an agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 18.08.2010, which was registered on 03.06.2011 vide document No. 250/2011. Thereafter, the writ petitioner made a representation dated 20.06.2011 bringing to the notice of the respondents 1 and 2 the charge in ownership and requesting them not to renew the licence of the 3rd respondent beyond 30.06.2011. Alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 failed to consider his representation, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.17999 of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 29.06.2011 directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s objections before renewal of the licence. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 came to be passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.06.2011, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that as per Rule 6(1) (vi) of the Rules, the licencee who wants renewal of licence in Form 2B has to produce the lease deed on a stamp paper for the proposed licensed premises from the owner, vehemently contended that as the 3rd respondent failed to produce such lease deed, he cannot be permitted to run the Bar and Restaurant in the premises in question. It is also contended that the objections filed by the petitioner were rejected without application of mind to the relevant factors, particularly the fact that the lease deed dated 11.07.2006 produced by the 3rd respondent was executed by the previous owner. Though no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent it is contended that the licence in his favour was rightly renewed on the basis of the lease deed executed by the vendor of the writ petitioner on 01.06.2006 for a period of 10 years. As per Rule 6(1) (vi) of the Rules, a licence in Form 2B shall not be granted unless the applicant produces the lease deed on a stamp paper for the proposed licence premises from the owner of the premises. Rule 9-A of the Rules provides for renewal of such licence. By circular dated 30.06.2011 issued by the 1st respondent, it was clarified that lease deed from the owner of the premises for the year 2011-2012 is mandatory for grant of renewal of 2B licence for the year 2011-2012. The fact that the premises in question was let out to the 3rd respondent under the lease deed dated 01.07.2006 executed by the vendor of the petitioner is not in dispute. A copy of the said document shows that the lease is for a period of 10 years up to 30.06.2016. On the basis of the said document, the 3rd respondent was initially granted Form 2B licence and it was renewed from time to time. Such renewal for the year 2011-2012 was granted by order dated 30.06.2011. According to the petitioner by the date of renewal he acquired title in respect of the premises in question by virtue of the registered agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney executed by the 3rd respondent’s lessor. His grievance is that though the charge in ownership was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent-licencing authority, the Form 2B licence in favour of the 3rd respondent was renewed on an erroneous assumption that the lease deed dated 11.07.2006 was valid up to 30.06.2016. As noticed above, one of the documents to be submitted by the licencee for renewal of Form 2B licence is the lease deed from the owner of the premises for the year 2011-2012. Therefore, the respondents cannot ignore the petitioner’s claim that he acquired title to the premises in question and that he was not willing for continuation of lease. Admittedly, the lease deed relied upon by the 3rd respondent was executed in the year 2006. Though the said lease is for a period of 10 years i.e. up to 2016, in view of the petitioner’s claim that he acquired title under a registered document executed by the 3rd respondent’s lessor, it is necessary for the respondents 1 and 2 to enquire into the objection raised by the petitioner and record a finding as to the subsistence of the lease in favour of the 3rd respondent. Since the respondents 1 and 2 failed to record any such finding, the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 cannot be sustained and the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing both the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 05.09.2011 KLP