IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20769 of 2008 Between: M/s Sri Datta Wines, D/No.1-83, Ravinuthala village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, rep by its Proprietor, Mallela Surendra, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, aged 30 years, R/o. Yeerabalem Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Prdesh, Rep by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, 4 Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole. 5 Excise Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise Department, Ongole, Prakasam District. 6 Circle Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Department, Addanki, Prakasam District. 7 The Circle Inspector of Police, Addanki, Prakasam District. 8 The Sub Inspector of Police, Korisapadu Mandal, P.S., Medarametla, Prakasam District. 9 Moparthi Anjaiah, S/o. Venkatasubbaiah, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 10 Dama Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Purnachandrarao, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 11 Thammana Hanumantharao, S/o. Anjaneyulu, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 12 Nagaboina Anjaneyulu, S/o. Ankaiah, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 13 Bonthu yanadi Rao, S/o. Anjaneyulu, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 14 Annangi Anajaneyulu, S/o. Nagabushanam, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 15 Valluri Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chennaiah, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 16 Karusala Haribabu, S/o. Punnaiah, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 17 Jagarlamudi Anjaneyulu, S/o. P.Subbaiah, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 18 Ravinuthala Kameswararao, S/o. Venkata Subbarao, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 19 Chebrolu Ramanjaneyulu, Ravinuthala Grampanchayat. R/o. Ravinuthala (V), korisapadu (M), prakasam District. 20 Chebrolu Venkateswarlu, S/o. nagabushanam, R/o. Ravinuthala (V), Korisapadu (M), Prakasam District. 21 Karusala Gurubabu, S/o. Veraiah, R/o. Ravinuthala (V) Korisapadu (M), Prakasam 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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents authorities in not giving protection to the petitioner to open and run the wine shop in the name of M/s Sri Datta Wines, Ravinuthala village as per the License granted by the Excise Department without taking action against the respondents 9 to 21 including their henchmen in spite of written representation, dated 06-09- 2008 is illegal and void and opposed Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents police to give protection to the petitioner to run the wine shop in question including directing the excise department to refund the License Fee from 01.07.2008 till the opening of wine shop by taking necessary action against the offenders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. MUMMANENI.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20769 OF 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 to 8 in not providing protection to the petitioner to open and run wine shop in the name and style of M/s. Sri Datta Wines, Ravinuthala Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 1 to 8. The material on record shows that the petitioner herein being the successful bidder in the auction was granted a licence for sale of Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor for the lease period 2008-2010 under the provisions of the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, ‘the Rules, 2005’). Accordingly, the petitioner made all the requisite deposits and pursuant thereto a licence in Form A-4 was granted in favour of the petitioner by proceedings of the 5th respondent – Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Ongole, dated 4.7.2008 to run the shop in the name and style of M/s. Sri Datta Wines at Ravinuthala. However, the petitioner states that he could not open the wine shop at Ravinuthala Village since the respondents 9 to 21 herein along with their henchmen obstructed and assaulted the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the 8th respondent - Sub-Inspector of Police, Korisapadu P.S. - on 7.7.2008 seeking protection. Since he failed to take any action, the petitioner made representation dated 6.9.2008 requesting both the 3rd respondent – District Collector - as well as the 4th respondent – Superintendent of Police - to provide protection. However no protection was provided to enable the petitioner to open and run the wine shop as per the licence granted to him. Hence, the present writ petition. The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Ongole ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit in which the fact that the petitioner was the successful bidder in the auction held for the lease period 2008-2010 has not been disputed. It is also stated that he was granted the licence in form-A4 to establish the shop at Door No. 1- 83 of Ravinuthala Village vide proceedings dated 4.7.2008 after being satisﬁed that the said premises was in conformity with Rule 27 (1) of the Rules, 2005. However, some of the villagers obstructed and objected for location of the petitioner’s shop in the village and on a complaint made by the petitioner in the Grievance Cell, the Collector & District Magistrate directed the respondent No.5 to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, enquiry was got conducted through the respondent No.6 and a report was submitted to the District Collector on 2.8.2008 informing that some villagers had assaulted the petitioner. Though the respondent No.6 visited the village several times on 9.7.2008, 11.7.2008, 6.8.2008, 14.8.2008, 22.8.2008 and 14.9.2008 along with his staﬀ and made all possible eﬀorts to convince the villagers, the eﬀorts were not fruitful. Thus, it is pleaded that the allegation that the respondents failed to take any action pursuant to the representations made by the petitioner is incorrect. Though no counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents 7 and 8, the learned Government Pleader for Home, under instructions, stated that all the villagers are opposing the establishment of a liquor shop in Ravinuthala village. Having regard to the strong objections raised by the villagers, if any, protection is granted to the petitioner to run the wine shop, there is every likelihood of law and order problem. It is true that the petitioner is holding a valid licence under the Rules, 2005 to run the business at Ravinuthala Village. It is also not in dispute that the premises selected by the petitioner for sale of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor is in conformity with the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules, 2005 and the same has been approved by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent. However, this is a case where the residents of the village have been opposing the location of the shop within the village. As could be seen from the counter- aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 4th respondent, though the officials made several eﬀorts to convince the villagers did not agree. Though the petitioner alleged obstruction from the respondents 9 to 21, the learned Government Pleader for Home as well as the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, under instructions, stated that the opposition is from the entire village but not from any individuals as alleged by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the respondents cannot be found fault with in not providing protection to the petitioner to run the shop in the premises in question. It is also relevant to note that Rule 29 of the Rules, 2005 provides for shifting of the licensed premises for valid reasons with the permission of the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise within the same area/locality where it was originally established. Hence, the petitioner would have taken steps to carry on business in another suitable premises keeping in view the opposition from the entire village. For the aforesaid reasons, though a Writ of Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted, the writ petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application for shifting the licensed premises. If any such application is made, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such application. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 14.11.2008 gbs Note- CC in 3 days. (B/O) KLP