THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.30345 of 2011 Dated 16th November, 2011 Between: M/s.Vinayak Wines and others …Petitioners And The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, Excise Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Shashidhar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Cr.No.17155/2010/CPE/G4, dated 11.01.2011, of respondent No.3, whereby he has permitted respondent No.4 to shift the liquor shop under A4 licence to new premises bearing D.No.30- 266/3/31 of Gokul Nagar, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners are the existing A4 licensees authorised to sell liquor in retail. Respondent No.4 is also a licensee to sell liquor in retail. It has applied to the respondents for permission to shift its premises from one place to another place in the same ward i.e., Ward No.136. A few licensees, including petitioner No.4, submitted their objections to the said application of respondent No.4. After calling for report from his subordinate officials, respondent No.3 has permitted shifting of the premises by respondent No.4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri G.Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, advanced two submissions, namely, that the permission granted by respondent No.3 to shift the shop of respondent No.4 is likely to adversely affect his clients’ business and that the proposed location is within the prohibited distances from a hospital and school as envisaged under Rule 27 of the A.P.Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’). As regards the first submission of the learned counsel, a perusal of the report, dated 24.01.2011, submitted by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, a copy of which is filed by the petitioners themselves, would show that the distances between the proposed premises and premises of some of the existing bar and A4 licensees have been mentioned therein. It was opined that shifting of the premises by respondent No.4 is likely to hamper the sales of M/s.Sai Bhavani Wines. This report does not indicate that the business of any of the petitioners is likely to be affected by the shifting of the premises by respondent No.4. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that the opinion expressed by respondent No.1 in his report is wrong. Indeed, as noted above, the petitioners themselves filed the copy, the contents of which are not disputed by the petitioners. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioners have no locus whatsoever to question the decision of respondent No.3 permitting shifting of business premises by respondent No.4. Further more, respondent No.3 is vested with the discretion to permit shifting of the premises subject, however, to the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules, which envisaged minimum distance to be maintained from places of public worship, educational institutions, hospitals and highways. Even though the petitioners have stated that the proposed premises falls within the prescribed distances from a hospital and school, the report of respondent No.1 is silent on this aspect. At any rate, this is not a public interest litigation where the petitioners can raise this issue. Once their business is not likely to be affected, they have no competence to question the decision of respondent No.3 to permit respondent No.4 to shift his business premises. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37591 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th November, 2011 VGB