HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 29538 OF 2011 Dated 4th November, 2011 Between: Thummakuntla Raji Reddy ………Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Yeshwanth Kumar Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner on the basis of a peculiar plea that persons who are similarly situated to him are being allowed to run the liquor shops despite termination of licences filed this writ petition for issuance of a mandamus to extend the same purported illegal benefit to him as well. On the petitioner’s own showing his A-4 licence for sale of Indian made foreign liquor in retail was cancelled by respondent No.2 by order dated 06-09-2011. Having failed to convince this Court to grant relief in Writ Petition No. 25474 of 2011 filed by him, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1 questioning the order of cancellation. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has secured an order of stay from respondent No.1. He has however pleaded that even though the licences of ten other A-4 licensees have been cancelled, they are permitted to run the shops. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot take the plea of discrimination because with the termination of licence, he loses his right to carry on the business unless such termination order is either cancelled or suspended by the competent authority. Even assuming that the respondents have permitted some others to run the shops despite cancellation of licences, the petitioner cannot claim parity because the settled legal position is that a person cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution of India for claiming negative equality (see State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others[1]; General Manager. Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs. Lakshmi Devi[2] a n d State of Punjab vs. Surjit Singh[3]). For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to consider the allegation raised by the petitioner that ten persons named in the affidavit are permitted to run the shops in spite of cancellation of licences. If this allegation is found to be true, they shall take immediate steps to ensure that they do not run the shops so long as the orders of cancellation of their licences remain in force. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.36575 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 4th November, 2011 ks LR Copies [1] (2009) 5 SCC 65 [2] (2009) 7 SCC 205 [3] (2009) 9 SCC 514