THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12473 OF 2010 Dated 3rd June, 2010 Between: Kakarla Atchamamba and two others …Petitioners And The District Collector and six others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Sricharan Telaprolu for Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri Counsel for respondents 3 to 5: G.P for Prohibition and Excise Counsel for respondent No.6 : G.P for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 04.12.2009 issued by respondent No.5. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction that the action of respondent No.4 in granting licence to respondent No.7 to establish a retail liquor shop at Door No.22-3-4, Deepalavari Street, Kakinada as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners are residents of the abovementioned area in Kakinada Town. Respondent No.7 was granted a licence in Form A-4 to sell liquor in retail for the excise years 2008-2010. Stating that the said liquor shop is situated adjacent to the petitioners’ houses and within the prohibited distances from the religious and educational institutions, the petitioners filed W.P.No.22008 of 2009. This Court disposed of the said writ petition, by order dated 29.10.2009, by directing respondent No.5 to dispose of petitioners’ representation dated 31.07.2008, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. In compliance with the said direction, respondent No.5 considered and disposed of the petitioners’ representation by order dated 04.12.2009. By the said order, respondent No.5 rejected the petitioners’ representation by holding that the location of the shop by respondent No.7 is inconformity with Rule 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short “the Rules”) and that after due verification, licence was issued to respondent No.7. At the hearing, Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel representing Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, assailed the abovementioned finding of respondent No.5 by stating that no details have been mentioned as to the actual distances between the Christian prayer hall, PR High School compound and main gate of the Tahsildar’s Office. A careful perusal of the material on record shows that except stating that the liquor shop was located within the prohibited distances of 50 meters from the Christian prayer hall and 100 meters from the PR High School compound and main gate of Tahsildar’s Office, the petitioners have not filed any supporting documents to substantiate the said allegation. It is in this background that respondent No.5 had stated that the verification of the distances revealed that the location of the liquor shop is inconformity with Rule 27 of the Rules. In my opinion, in the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioners to show that the liquor shop is situated within the prohibited distances in terms of Rule 27, it is not necessary for respondent No.5 to delve into the details as to the actual distances. Even in the present writ petition, the petitioners have not filed any material such as the certificates issued by the competent authority revealing the actual distances between the liquor shop and the abovementioned institutions. As the petitioners failed to produce contra material to disprove the finding of respondent No.5, I have no reason to reject the finding contained in the impugned order with regard to compliance of Rule 27 of the Rules. This Court, exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not examine the orders of the administrative bodies as if it is exercising appellate jurisdiction. The petitioners failed to establish that rejection of petitioners’ representation by respondent No.5 is vitiated by manifest illegality or patent arbitrariness. Another material aspect, which requires to be noticed in this case, is that neither the persons who are running the prayer hall nor the management of the High School or the Tahsildar have ever questioned the location of the shop of respondent No.7. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.15726 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 3rd June, 2010 vrn