HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26124 of 2010 Date: 07.12.2011 Between: M/s Neni-Hi-Tech Club Pvt Ltd., Secunderabad, reptd by its Managing Director-N.Shekar Reddy ..... Petitioner And: The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the administration of the petitioner-club without there being any statutory violation on the part of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise representing the respondents. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is involved in running a club. The petitioner pleaded that its club members carry liquor for consuming the same in the suite rooms hired by them and also in the rooms designed like huts for securing privacy to its members and their family members. The petitioner further pleaded that Rule 23 (iv) of the Rules made under Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, envisages taking out license in Form-1L-20; that the said Rules were repealed; and that as per the corresponding Rule i.e., Rule 4 (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of license of selling by In-House and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005, (for short ‘2005 Rules’), the license in Form C-1 needs to be obtained for serving liquor. The petitioner pleaded that this provision has no application to it, since such a license is granted only to Society run Clubs with non-profit motto, but not to Company run Clubs incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. On the above premises, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition with the above-noted prayer. The respondents have not filed counter-affidavits. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise at the hearing placed before the Court, final order, dated 16.06.2008, in Writ Petition No.9750 of 2004, a perusal of which shows that the petitioner herein filed the said Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in restraining or interfering with the activities of the petitioner’s Club pertaining to consumption of liquor by its members as illegal and arbitrary. Learned single Judge, after a detailed consideration of the respective pleas, while repelling the plea of the petitioner that it is not required to take any license for permitting its members to consume liquor held as under: - “Having considered the rival contentions urged by both the counsel, I am of the opinion that there are various types of licenses, such as, ‘On and Off licenses’. A perusal of “On license’ granted in respect of a club, bar or military canteen etc., goes to show that the license is required to be taken in respect of the club and similar other specified place, whereas the license is not required to consume the liquor in a private house. When the club is required to obtain a license, I am of the opinion that the members of the club cannot use the club as a Bar for its consumption. As a matter of fact, even if the club has got a license, the club is not entitled to purchase liquor in small quantity less than 750 ml, except beer. Therefore, there is a requirement to obtain a license in respect of a club if the club members desire to consume the liquor in the premises of the club whether they purchased outside or from the club. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the club members are entitled to purchase the liquor from either bar or retail license holder outside the club premises and can consume the same along with their family members and friends in the club premises without possessing the required license. If this reasoning is accepted, there cannot be any prohibition to consume the liquor anywhere. If the provisions of the Prohibition Act cannot be implemented and if the members of the club are permitted to consume the liquor in a club, many places will merge into a club, which virtually will be run as a bar.” On the above analysis, the Writ Petition was dismissed. The petitioner has not disclosed the fact of dismissal of the said Writ Petition and filed the present Writ Petition raising substantially the same contentions and for similar relief. The petitioner has, thus, indulged in suppression of material facts. The petitioner having failed to convince this Court to grant the relief as claimed in the said Writ Petition, is not entitled to file a second Writ Petition for the similar relief. Following the order, dated 16.06.2008, in Writ Petition No.9750 of 2004, this Writ Petition is dismissed. For indulging in the act of suppression of filing and dismissal of the previous Writ Petition, the petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of one month. If the costs are not paid, the Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, shall recover the same through legal process. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.33357 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th December 2011 DR