The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.16290 of 2010 Dated 24th August, 2010 Between: Kadali Venkata Satyanarayana and 5 others …Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Excise Department, rep.by its Principal Secretary and 5 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.L.V.S.Nagaraju Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent No.6: Mr.M.Goutham Reddy for Mr.K.Chidambaram The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed by six individuals of Tottaramudi Village, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari District, for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in granting licence to run a retail liquor shop by respondent No.6 at Door No.6-73/1, of the said village, as illegal and in violation of Rule 27 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Rights of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’). I have heard Sri L.V.S.Nagaraju, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri N.Goutham Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Counsel for respondent No.6. The petitioners, as noted above, are the residents of Tottaramudi Village, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari District. According to them, the premises, in which respondent No.6 is permitted to run liquor shop under A-4 licence, is near a statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, the main road and a Zilla Parishad School, which is within a distance of less than 100 meters. It is further averred that on a request made by the villagers, the Tahsildar, Ainavilli Mandal, measured the distance and found that the said shop is located at a distance of 97.4 meters from the Zilla Parishad School. The petitioners pleaded that under Rule 27 (1) of the Rules, a liquor shop shall not be located within a distance of 100 meters from an educational institution and 50 meters from the highways and that as the shop is located within 100 meters of the high school, granting of licence is illegal. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5- Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Amalapuram, it is inter alia stated that pursuant to the notification issued for grant of licence for running A-4 shops, respondent No.6 offered a sum of Rs.54,11,999/- against the upset price of Rs.35,64,999/- for Tottaramudi Village; that the Station House Officer and the Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent Amalapuram, submitted proposals for grant of licence at the proposed premises; that after a thorough verification of the premises in question, the said two functionaries reported that the premises conforms to the requirements of Rule 27 of the Rules and that accordingly, a licence was issued in favour of respondent No.6 on 01-07-2010. It is further averred that on representation, dated 28-06-2010, received from some of the villagers by respondent No.4- District Collector, East Godavari District, and respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada, the matter was examined and the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Amalapuram submitted his report, dated 31-07-2010, after a thorough enquiry, to the following effect: “1.Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Statue does not fall under Rule 27 of A.P.Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005. 2.Sri Sitaramanjaneya Temple is not registered under Endowment Department, hence the temple not falls under Rule 27 a copy of certificate from endowment department. 3.It is alleged that the distance of school from licenced premises is 97 mts surveyed by the Mandal Surveyor, which is a violation of Rule 2. The same was resurveyed in presence of Tahsildar, Inavilli, M.D.O., Inavilli Station House Officers, Amalapuram, and Sub-Inspector of Police, Inavilli and found to be 113.5 mts away from school. 4.R.D.O., Amalapuram has forwarded a representation made by the Muktesarapalem Villagers. In this regard, he submitted that the A4 shops located as per the Rule 27 of A.P.Excise (Lease of Right of selling by shop and condition of licence) Rules, 2005. 5.The Station House Officers, Amalapuram stated that he booked (8) belt shop cases on a complaint received on 15-07-2010 from S.Venkata Satyanarayana and other of Inavilli Mandal. 6.The A4 shop is running as per the rules of the A.P.Excise (Lease of Right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005.” The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the contents of the above report are in conflict with the report of the Tahsildar, Ainavilli Mandal, and that if the distance is properly measured, the truth will come out. In my opinion, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not embark upon the disputed questions of fact. The State has the right to auction the privilege to carry on liquor business. In order to ensure that running of such business does not cause inconvenience to the general public, it has framed rules stipulating restrictions. Rule 27 of the Rules contains prohibition on location of a liquor shop within the specified distances from places of public worship, educational institutions, highways and hospitals. As found by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Amalapuram, in his report, the objections raised by some of the villagers were found incorrect and that the location of the shops is not violation of Rule 27 of the Rules. The petitioners failed to substantiate their allegations pertaining to violation of Rule 27 of the Rules except placing reliance on the report of the Tahsildar, Ainavilli Mandal, showing that the distance between the high school and the proposed premises in question is 97.4 meters as against the minimum stipulated distance of 100 meters. In the face of the report of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Amalapuram, that the distance is found to be 113.5 meters, it is not possible for this Court to interdict respondent No.6 from running his shop merely on the basis of a purported report of the Tahsildar, Ainavilli Mandal, who is not the authority prescribed under the Rules to issue such a certificate. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.20523 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 24th August, 2010 lur