*The Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.RAO +Writ Petition Nos.2522 of 2005 and Batch %21.11.2008 £ M/s. Siva Krishna Wines, situated at Door No. 4/177, Krishnapuram Village,C.K. Dinne Mandal, Rep. by its Proprietor S. Nagaraja Reddy, S/o. Pedda Anki Reddy, aged about 37 years, R/o.Mummusiddi Palli Village, Pendli Marri Mandal, Cuddapah District and others. …Petitioners Vs. $ Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents !For the petitioners …Mr.V.R.Reddy Kovvuri and others ^For the Respondents …GP for Prohibition & Excise <Gist: >Head Notes: ? Cases Referred 1. 1992 (2) ALT 314 (DB) = 1992 (2) APLJ 14 (DB) 2. 1997 (6) ALT 788 (DB) 3. 1998 (3) ALD 159 (DB) 4. 2003 (5) ALD 479 5. 2008 (1) ALT 578 6. (2004) 11 SCC 26 7. (2006) 5 SCC 702 = AIR 2006 SC 2652 8. AIR 1975 SC 1121 9. 1993 (2) An.W.R. 601 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 2522 of 2005 Between: M/s. Siva Krishna Wines, situated at Door No. 4/177, Krishnapuram Village,C.K. Dinne Mandal, Rep. by its Proprietor S. Nagaraja Reddy, S/o. Pedda Anki Reddy, aged about 37 years, R/o. Mummusiddi Palli Village, Pendli Marri Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice in Rc.No. C1/686/2004 dt. 05-02-2005 issued by the 2nd respondent herein directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,18,750/- within seven days from the date of the receipt of the said notice as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Indian Liquor & Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 and violative of the Fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 2628 of 2005 Between: 1 T.C. Malla Reddy, S/o. T. Rami Reddy, Hindu, Licencee of R.R. Wines (156/04-05) Buggaletipalli Village, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. 2 G. Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o. Venkata Swamy Reddy, Hindu, of Nagendra Wines (341/04-05) C.K. Dinne Village and Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent in demanding the petitioners herein to pay Rs. 2,18,750/- each in his Rc.No. C1/452/2004 dated 05-02-2005 and in Rc.No. C1/592/2004 dated 05-02-2005 respectively withut issuing any notice as illegla, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and against the Rules 25 of A.P., Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules 1970 and consequently set aside the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in his Rc.No. C1/452/2004 dated 05-02-2005 and Rc. No. C1/592/2004 dated 05-02-2005 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 3873 of 2005 Between: K. Hari Prasad, S/o. Sri Obanna, Ramachandrapuram, Chinta Komma Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Exhibition Grounds, Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent in Rc.No. C1/669/2004, dt. 05-02-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violatie of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard against the petitioenr and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit an dproepr int eh circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 4006 of 2005 Between: M/s.Rama Krishna Wines, situated at Door No.K/294, C.K.Dinne C.K.Dinne Mandal, Cuddapah District rep.by its Prop. C.Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o.Nagamalla Reddy, R/o.2/84, Alankanpalli village, Cuddapah Mandal, Cuddapah Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice in Rc.No.C1/593/2004, dated 05-02-2005 issued by the 2nd respondent herein directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,18,750/- within seven days from the date of the receipt of the said notice as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Indian Liquor & Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 and violative of the fundamentla rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 4739 of 2005 Between: Reddy Veerabhadra Rao, S/o. Govinda Rao, Door No. 5-115/2, ADB Road, Atchampet Junction, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order in Rc.No. B1/55/2005, dated 10-2-2005 of the 2nd respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice, Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, violative of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, apart from being violative of the A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules and consequently set-aside the same and pass such other order or ordrs as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 4848 of 2005 Between: 1 Smt.N.Prabhavati W/o.Kasiviswanath M/s Sai Prabha Wines L.H.S.Peta, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari Dist. 2 G.Challa Rao, S/o.Gurraju M/s Sai Prabha Wines L.H.S.Peta, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent East Godavari District, Kakinada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Rc.No.B1/55/2005 dt.10.2.2005 as illegal arbitrary and one without jurisdictionand pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 6390 of 2005 Between: K. Venkata Rao, S/o. Gani Raju, Thimmapuram, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari Dsitrict. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Exhibition Grounds, Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition and Excise Superitendent, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice issued by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No. B1/55/2005, dated 10-02-05 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard against the Petitioenr and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 6489 of 2005 Between: 1 V. Srinivasulu S/o. Ramaiah M/s. Sri VIjaya Wines, R/o. Kovur, Nellore District. 2 K. Subba Rao S/o. Penchalaiah M/s. Kovur Wines, R/o. Kovur, Nellore District. 3 K. Hari Gopal Reddy S/o. Raja Gopal Reddy M/s.Swathi Wines, R/o.Padugupadu, Kovur Mandal, Nellore District. 4 A. Venkat Raju S/o. Subbramanyam Raju M/s. Akhil Wines, R/o. Kovur, Nellore District. 5 V. Malyadri Laxmi Narasimha Rao S/o. Kondaiah M/s. Laxmi Narasimha Wines, R/o. Kovur, Nellore District. 6 S. Koteswar Rao S/o. Balaiah M/s. Chandra Wines, R/o. Kovur, Nellore District. 7 K. Venkata Seshaiah S/o. Rangaiah M/s. Rock Wines, R/o. Inamadugu Village, Kovur Mandal, Nellore District. 8 D. Vara Lakshammma W/o. Balasundaram M/s. Varalakshmi Wines, R/o Padugupadu Village, Kovur Mandal, Nellore District. 9 Ch. Babu Rao S/o. Purushotam M/s. Saibaba Wines, R/o. Kovur Mandal, Nellore District. 10 Y. Babi Reddy S/o. Pulla Reddy M/s. Harihara Wines, R/o. Kakupally, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. 11 N. Mallikarjuna S/o. Venkataramanayya, M/s. Sri Balaji Wines, R/o. Navala Gardens, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. 12 A. Sanjeeva Raju S/o. Sanjveeva Raju M/s. Surya Wines, R/o. Gummaladibba, Kovur Mandal, Nellore District. 13 P. Subbayya S/o. Sankarayya M/s. Hema Wines, R/o. Pedacherukuru,Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. 14 L. Parameswara Reddy S/o. Sunku Reddy M/s. Vijayalaxmi Wines, R/o. Kothakaluva, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. 15 M. Dayakar S/o. Ramanaiah, M/s.Kalyani Wines, R/o. Narayanareddypeta, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. 16 B. Venkateswarlu S/o. Chinnayya M/s. Giri Wines, R/o. Chemudugunta Village, Nellore District. 17 M. Rammurhty S/o. Venkaiah M/s. R.R. Wines, R/o. Allipuram, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition and Excise, Superintendent , Nellore. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting the petitioners to pay the differential licence fee i.e, Rs. 2,80,480/- and Rs. 3,52,398/-on the ground that Nellore Municipality has been upgraded into municipal Corporation with effect from 8-10-2004 as illegal arbitrary and one without Jurisdiction and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.JAGANNATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 6667 of 2005 Between: M/s. SSR wines, Penuguduru Village (Karapa Mandal), E.G. Dist., Licencee Masa Nageswar Rao S/o. Ratnam, aged about 35 yrs, Occ: Business, License No. 542/2004-2005. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Excise Superintendent,, Prohibition & Excise, E.G. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus suspending the proceedings of the second respondent in Rc.No. B1/55/2005 dt. 10-2-2005 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VINAY KAMISETTY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 7072 of 2005 Between: 1 N. Sreenivasulu, S/o. Jayaramaiah, Hema Wines Dhanalakshmipuram, Vaviletipadu, Nell9ore, rural Mandal, Nellore District. 2 P. Prabhakar, S/o. Penchalaiah, Kalyani Wines, Kothur, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. 3 P. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Prabha Wines, Varigonda, T.P. Gudur Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Governmen of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderbad. 2 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nellore. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, Writ or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus Under Article 226 of Constitution of India, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting the Petitioners to pay the differential licence fee i.e. Rs. 2,80,480/- and Rx. 3,52,398/- on the ground that Nellore Municipality has been upgraded into Municipal Corporation with effect from 8-10-2004 by issuing the iimpugned Proceedings by 2nd respondent in proceedings Rc.No. 211/2003/A2, dated -26- 02-2005, Rc.No. 274/2003/A2 dated 26-02-2005 and Rc.no. 351/2003/A2 dated 26-02-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisidiction and set aside the same and pass such order are orders that the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 8744 of 2005 Between: 1 M/s. Sri Rama Wines, Teegalaguttapally, Karimnagar District, Rep. by J. Ranga Rao S/o. Hanumantha Rao. 2 M/s. Saibaba Wines, Durshed, Karimnagar District, Rep. by K. Hanumantha Rao S/o. Tirupathi Rao. 3 M/s. SaiWines, Gopalapur, Karimnagar District, Rep. by K. Tirupathi Rao. S/o. Narayana rao 4 M/s. Srinivasa Wines, Alugunoor, Karimnagar District, R/o. P. Bhaskar Reddy S/o. Venkat Narasimha Reddy. 5 M/s. Renuka Wines, Mankondur, Karimnagar District, Rep. by T. Shekar S/o. Komuraiah. 6 M/s. Alugunoor Wines, Alugunoor, Karimnagar District, Rep. by T. Rajamouli, S/o. Narsaiah, 7 M/s. A.1 Wines, Alugunoor, Karimnagar District, Rep. by Ch. Ramesh Reddy S/o. Linga Reddy. 8 M/s. Tirumala Wines, Kothapally (H) Karimnagar District, Rep. by G. Satyanarayana S/o. Lakshmi Rajyam. 9 M/s. S.R.R. Wines, Chintakuntla, Karimnagar District, Rep. by G./ Sudhakar Goud S/o. Hanuma Goud. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra PRadesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to directing the respondents to permit the petitioner's to continue to run their respective IL-24 retail licensee shops as per the licensee fees already received by 31-3-2005 without insisting to pay differntial licensee fee consequent to formation of Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, by holding the action of the respondents in demanding to pay differentiall licensee fee and threatening petitioners to close the shops without issuing any orders as per rules is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and opposed to all principles of equity, justice and fair play and pass such ohter order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 9629 of 2005 Between: 1 Tuta Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, R/o. Vhataparru Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Licencee of M/s. Anusha Wines. 2 K.V.Subba Rao, s/o. Koteswara Rao, r/o. Madepalli Village. Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Licencee of M/s. K.V.R.Wines. 3 P.Rama Mohan Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Jalipudi Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Licencee of M/s. Anusha Wines. 4 B.Venkateswara Rao, s/o. Saidulu, R/o. Poturu Village, Peddapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. Licencee of M/s. Vijaya Durga Wines 5 K.Venkateswara Rao, s/o. Surya Rao, R/o. Malkapuram Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Licencee of M/s. Sri Durga Wines. 6 P.Satyanarayana, S/o. Laxmana Swamy, R/o. Ponangi, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Licencee of M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Wines. 7 E.Sumathi, W/o. Ashok Kumar, R/o. Kotturu Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Licencee of M/s. M.G.R. Wines. 8 T.Rama Krishna Prakash, S/o. Madhusudhan Rao, R/o. Vatluru Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Licencee of M/s. Chilaka Wines. 9 A.Satish Chowdary, S/o. Murali Krishna, R/o. Vatluru Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Licencee of M/s. Satya Krishna Wines. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Excise Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in insisting the petitioners to pay the differential licence fee i.e. Rs. 1,22,597/- and Rs. 87,569/- on the ground that periphery limits of the Eluru Municipal Corporation is extended upto 5 Kms. as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction, and pass such other are orders that the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.JAGANNATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 11103 of 2005 Between: Keeravani Wines, Kothapally, Rep. by G. Tirupathi Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declaring the action of the 1st respondent in demanding the petitioner to pay deferential enhanced licensee fee of Rs. 93,750/- in proceeding Rc.No. 461/2005/P &EX/A11 dt. 4-5-2005 without issuing any notice as illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Rule 25 of A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules 1970 and consequently set aside the impugned proceeding dt. 4- 5-2005 of the 1st Respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE WRIT PETITION NO : 12771 of 2005 Between: M/s. Vinod Wines, Teegalaguttapalli, Represented by D. Sagar, S/o. Kistaiah, Aged 22 years, Occ : Business, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the WRIT OF MANDAMUS to directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to run hi sIL 24 License shop as per the licensee fees already received by 02-4-2005 without insisting to pay differential licensee fee of Rs. 1,21,250/- is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and opposed to all principles of equity, justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2522, 2628, 3873, 4006, 4739, 4848, 6390, 6489, 6667, 7072, 8744, 9629, 11103 AND 12771 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: Background of the cases In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners were granted licence in Form IL-24 for the year 2004-2005 under Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (hereafter called, the Rules) and provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity, Excise Act). When licences were granted, shops were situated in villages at some distance from municipality governed by Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (Municipalities Act, for brevity). Some time in 2004, when licences were in force, places where shops were licensed to sell Indian liquor came into belt of 5 KMs from periphery of Municipal Corporations governed by Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (hereafter called, Corporations Act). Therefore, concerned licensing authority issued notices demanding differential licence fee for the period during which the area or place where the shop is licensed came within Corporation peripheral area. Such notices were issued purportedly in accordance with Rule 25 read with Schedule appended to the Rules. These notices are challenged in these writ petitions. The core controversy in these cases is already indicated above and therefore, it is not necessary to elaborate the background of each case again except making a reference as and when necessary if there are special facts and circumstances in a given case. However, particulars of the area where the shop was licensed, its location and the date with effect from which Municipal Corporation was notified under Corporations Act, are shown in the following table. Writ Petition No. Place/area where licence was given Nature of area Fee Rs. in lakhs when licence was granted Date from which Corporation was established Present location Licence fee Rs. in lakhs 522/2005 Krishnapuram, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa Dist Village 3.00 13.11.2004 Belt area of 5 KMs 8.25 628/2005 Buggaletipalli Village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa Dist Village 3.00 13.11.2004 -do- 8.25 873/2005 Ramachandrapuram, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa Dist Village 3.00 13.11.2004 -do- 8.25 006/2005 C.K.Dinne, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa Dist Village 3.00 13.11.2004 -do- 8.25 739/2005 Timmapuram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal Village 3.00 06.01.2005 -do- 8.25 848/2005 K a k i n a d a Rural Mandal Municipality 3.00 06.01.2005 Municipal Corporation 8.25 390/2005 Timmapuram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal Village 3.00 06.01.2005 Belt area of 5 KMs 8.25 489/2005 Nellore Rural Mandal Municipality 3.00/ 4.50 08.10.2004 Municipal Corporation 10.35 667/2005 Penuguduru Village, Karapa Mandal, E.G.Dist Village 3.00 06.01.2005 Belt area of 5 KMs 8.25 072/2005 Nellore Rural Mandal Municipality 3.00/ 4.50 08.10.2004 Municipal Corporation 10.35 744/2005 Karimnagar District Municipality 3.00 07.04.2005 Belt area of 5 KMs 8.25 629/2005 Eluru Municipality 3.00 07.04.2005 -do- 8.25 103/2005 K o t h a p a l l y village, Karimnagar Dist Municipality 4.50 07.04.2005 -do- 8.25 2771/2005 Teegalaguttapalli village, Karimnagar Municipality 3.00 07.04.2005 -do- 8.25 The uncontroverted fact situation gives rise to point for consideration as to whether the authorities can claim differential licence fee without there being amendment to Rule 25 of the Rules to collect licence fee after place of shop like village came within peripheral area of Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader made elaborate submissions. They also relied on M/s.Delux Bar v Excise Superintendent[1], Sri Rama Wines v Excise Superintendent[2], Meka Nageswara Rao v Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Guntur[3], Tirumala Balaji Wines v Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad[4] and B.Venkataramana v Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise[5]. Relevant Law and Legal Principles The right to deal with intoxicating substances – manufacturing, marketing and selling; is exclusive to sovereign State. Either in common law or in civil law, no citizen can claim a right or privilege to deal with intoxicating substances. It is res extra commercium. But when sovereign State decides to manufacture, market and sell intoxicating substances, it has two options. It may actively and directly involve in such business or it may part with privilege of manufacturing,