HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2053 OF 2011 . DATED---------June, 2011. BETWEEN Chinta Lacha Reddy …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, AP, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.2053 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed assailing the Proceedings Cr.No.615/2011/CPE/G3 dated 24.01.2011 issued by the Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein, whereunder the fifth respondent herein was permitted to shift his licensed premises of A4 shop running under the name and style of “M/s.Jagadamba Wines” L.No.163/10-12 from the existing premises at D.No.98/3, Jeelugumilli Village and Mandal to newly proposes premises at D.No.4-15, Lakshmipuram Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, under Rule 29(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Licence Conditions) Rules, 2005 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2005’) subject to payment of shifting fee as prescribed under the said Rules. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted licence for the sale of Indian Liquor and Foregin Liquor vide licence No.156/2010-12 dated 02.07.2010 by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Eluru, West Godavari District, the second respondent herein, in respect of shop at Gazette Sl.No.156, Locality/Area – Taduvai Village of Jangareddygudem Mandal for a consideration of Rs.1,30,99,999.99 ps. for the lease period from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2012. The petitioner after fulfilling the formalities started his business under the name and style of “M/s.Srija Wines” at the aforementioned premises. While so, the fifth respondent made a representation on 19.08.2010 to the first respondent seeking permission to shift her wine shop from Jeelugumill Village to Lakshmipuram Village, which is not notified area as per Gazette No.56 dated 27.05.2010 on the premise that she is incurring loss in her business. Knowing the same, the petitioner submitted his objections dated 30.08.2010 to the District Collector, West Godavari, stating to the effect that Laxmipuram Village is very near to his shop and if the fifth respondent’s wine shop is permitted to be shifted to Laxmipuram Village he would be made to suffer heavy loss in his business and therefore his shop may also be permitted to be shifted to Jangareddygudem Village. It is his further case that the first respondent, without considering his objections, issued the impugned proceedings dated 24.01.2011 granting permission to the fifth respondent to shift his licenced premises of A4 shop to Laxmipuram Village of Jeelugumill Mandal without assigning any reasons therefor, which is not permissible under the provisions of Rule 29(3) of the Rules of 2005. Hence, this writ petition. At the time of admitting the writ petition, this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned order on 02.02.2011. In pursuance thereof, the official respondents directed the fifth respondent to shift her wine shop from Laxmipuram Village to her old premises at Jeelugumill Village and it was accordingly shifted and the fifth respondent’s wine shop is running from 07.02.2011. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit on his behalf as well as on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4. He stated that the petitioner was the successful auction purchaser to Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor in respect of shop notified at Gazette Sl.No.156 at Taduvai Village of Jangareddigudem Mandal for the lease period from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2012 whereas the fifth respondent is the licensee in respect of shop notified at Gazette Sl.No.163 at Jeelugumulli Village. He further stated that the fifth respondent submitted representation for shifting of her wine shop from Jeelugumulli Village to Laxmipuram Village of same Jeelugumulli Mandal. Basing on the same, the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District, the fourth respondent herein, caused enquiry into the contents of the said representation and reported that as there are two liquor shops in Jeelugumilli Village, the fifth respondent is incurring loss in her business duly quoting the lifting of IMFL cases by both the licensees of the said village and recommended for shifting of the shop from Jeelugumilli Village to Laxmipuram Village. He also pointed out that Laxmipuram Village is not very near to the petitioner’s shop at Taduvai Village and the distance in between them is 4 K.Ms. and that Taduvai Village comes under Jangareddigudem Mandal whereas Laxmipuram Village comes under Jeelugumilli Mandal. The petitioner’s request for shifting his shop to Jangareddygudem Village, in case the fifth respondent’s request is considered and accepted, could not be considered as there are already seven liquor shops running in Jangareddygudem Village and it may cause unhealthy competition. He also stated that the shops of the petitioner and the fifth respondent are located in different Mandals and the petitioner has no grievance whatsoever against the fifth respondent in shifting her shop from Jeelugumilli Village to Laxmipuram Village of the same Mandal limits. He therefore submitted that exercising the powers conferred on him the first respondent issued the proceedings according permission to shift the shop of the fifth respondent from Jeelugumilli Village to Laxmipuram Village of the same Mandal and the same are strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 29(3) of the Rules of 2005. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The fifth respondent filed a vacate stay petition in WVMP No.661 of 2011 in WPMP No.2525 of 2011 in WP No.2053 of 2011 along with a counter affidavit seeking to vacate the interim order dated 02.02.2011 passed by this Court and also to dismiss the writ petition. She stated in her counter that the petitioner is not a licensee of any A4 shop within the limits of Jeelugumilli Mandal and his shop is located at Taduvai Village of Jangareedigudem Mandal, which is at a distance of 4 K.Ms. from Laxmipuram Village of Jeelugumilli Mandal and therefore the petitioner has no grievance at all in shifting her shop from old premises to new premises, which are within the limits of the same Mandal. She also stated that the first respondent, duly taking into consideration the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition, Eluru, West Godavari District, third respondent herein, and the shifting of shop is within the limits of same Mandal, exercised the powers conferred upon him under the provisions of Rule 29(3) of the Rules of 2005 and issued the proceedings dated 24.01.2011 according permission to shift her A4 shop from Jeelugumill Village to Laxmipuram Village. She specifically denied the averment of the petitioner that if her shop is shifted, the business of the petitioner would fall down. Pursuant to the impugned proceedings dated 24.01.2011, she paid a sum of Rs.95,100/- through challan and the second respondent issued the consequential proceeding dated 29.01.2011. Following the same, she shifted her shop from Jeelugumilli Village to Laxmipuram Village on 30.01.2011 itself. She therefore prayed for vacation of the interim order granted by this Court on 04.02.2011 and also dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the impugned proceedings dated 24.01.2011. Heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for Respondents 1 to 4 and Sri A.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel for the fifth respondent. Perused the case file and material paced on record. As can be seen from the matrix of the case, it is true that both the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent have been granted licences by the second respondent for the lease period 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2012 in respect of shops notified at Gazette Sl.Nos.156 of Taduvai Village of Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District, and 163 of Jeelugumilli Village of Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District, respectively. The main contention of the petitioner is that if the fifth respondent’s shop is permitted to be shifted from Jeelugumilli Village to Laxmipuram Village, he would suffer huge loss in his business as his shop is located nearer to Laxmipuram Village, whereas it is the grievance of the fifth respondent that as there are two liquor shops in Jeelugumilli Village which are existing within a distance of 100 yards from each other, her business is not running good and therefore she made a representation to the second respondent on 19.08.2010 to accord permission to shift her liquor shop from Jeelugumilli Village to Laxmipuram Village. It may be noticed here that both Jeelugumilli Village and Laxmipuram Village fall within the limits of the same Mandal, namely, Jeelugumill Mandal. The petitioner also submitted his objections dated 30.08.2010 stating to the effect that if the fifth respondent’s shop is permitted to be shifted to Laxmipuram, his shop may also be permitted to be shifted to Jangareddigudem on the ground that his shop is nearly 3 K.Ms. away from Laxmipuram Village where the fifth respondent proposed to locate her shop. The second respondent and the fourth respondent caused enquiry into the contents of the representation of the fifth respondent and taking into account the lifting of IMFL stocks by two licensees of Jeelugumilli Village and also by verifying the proposed premises at Laxmpuram Village, which is clearly at a distance of 4 K.Ms. to the shop of the petitioner, recommended for shifting of the fifth respondent’s shop to Laxmipuram Village. Considering this report and exercising the power conferred upon him under Rule 29(3) of the Rules of 2005, the first respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 24.01.2011 bearing in mind that both Jeelugumilli Village and Laxmpuram Village are within the limits of same Mandal, namely, Jeelugumilli Mandal. It may also be noticed that the petitioner was granted licence to cater the needs of liquor consumers of Taduvai Village of Jangareddigudem Mandal whereas the fifth respondent’s shop is permitted to be shifted from Jeelugumilli Village to Laxmipuram Village, which is at a distance of 4 K.Ms. from the shop of the petitioner and therefore it cannot be said that the business of the petitioner would be affected as ordinarily no liquor consumer of Taduvai Village leaves the shop of the petitioner which is situated in the same village and travels all the way 4 K.Ms. to Laxmipuram Village and purchases liquor from the fifth respondent’s shop and comes back to Taduvai Village. This is all on merits of the case. Coming to the issue of locus standi, it is the contention of the fifth respondent that her licence is granted to do liquor business in Jeelugumilli Village of Jeelugumilli Mandal whereas the licence of the petitioner is granted to do liquor business in Taduvai Village of Jangareedigudem Mandal and therefore the petitioner has no locus standi to question the impugned proceedings dated 24.01.2011 issued by the first respondent exercising the powers conferred upon him under Rule 29(3) of the Rules of 2005 as the right of the petitioner is not infringed. In this regard, it is apt to extract Rule 29(3) of the Rules of 2005: “Shifting of the licensed premises may be permitted for valid reasons within the notified area and subject to conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner subject to payment of one percent of the lease amount or Rs.25,000/- whichever is higher. Provided that the Commissioner may consider and permit for valid reasons shifting of the licensed premises, notwithstanding the notified area of the licensed premises, within the same Mandal or Municipality or Municipal Corporation without affecting the total number of notified shops in the said Mandal or Municipality or Municipal Corporation subject to condition as specified by the Commissioner and subject to payment of 1% of lease amount or Rs.25,000/- whichever is higher.” A reading of the above provision makes it amply clear that the Commissioner may, for valid reasons, consider shifting of the licensed premises, notwithstanding the notified area of the licensed premises, within the same Mandal provided the total number of notified shops in the said Mandal do not affect. In the present case, the second respondent on receipt of the representation of the fifth respondent for shifting of her shop from Jeelugumilli Village to Laxmipuram Village which are within the limits of same Mandal of Jeelugumilli caused necessary enquiry along with the fourth respondent and recommended the first respondent for shifting of the fifth respondent’s shop to Laxmipuram Village and accordingly exercising the powers conferred upon him under Rule 29(3) of the Rules of 2005, the first respondent accorded permission to the fifth respondent for shifting her shop to Laxmipuram Village of Jeelugumilli Mandal. The petitioner’s shop is located at Taduvai Village of Jangareddigudem Mandal and is granted licence to cater the needs of liquor consumers of Jangareddigudem Mandal whereas the fifth respondent is granted licence to cater the needs of liquor consumers of Jeelugumilli Mandal. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the proceedings dated 24.01.2011 of the first respondent in as much as no right vested in the petitioner has been violated. In this regard, reference may be made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in THE NAGAR RICE AND FLOUR MILLS v. N.TEEKAPPA GOWDA[1] wherein it was inter alia held thus: “10. …… Even assuming that no previous permission was obtained, the respondents would have no locus standi for challenging the grant of the permission, because no right vested in the respondent was infringed.” In JASBHAI MOTIBHAI DESAI v. ROSHAN KUMAR, HAJI BASHIR AHMED[2] the Supreme Court held thus: “47. In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore he is not a ‘person aggrieved’ and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the No Objection Certificate.” For the foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings dated 24.01.2011 issued by the first respondent by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the other contention that the impugned proceedings are bereft of valid reasons and the case law relied upon in regard thereto need not be gone into. Thus, viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in the writ petition which is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated 02.02.2011 passed by this Court in WPMP No.2525 of 2001 in WP No.2053 of 2011 stands vacated. WVMP No.661 of 2011 in WPMP No.2525 of 2001 in WP No.2053 of 2011 filed by the fifth respondent is closed. No order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated -------June, 2011. Msnro [1] AIR 1971 SC 246 [2] AIR 1976 SC 578