IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13769 of 2008 Between: K. Vijayakumar Reddy, S/o. Vasudeva Reddy, R/o. Nagavaram Village, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Excise Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissionerate of Excise, Rep by its Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Excise, Rep by its Asst. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 4 The Collectorate, Rep by its District Collector, Kadapa District. 5 Kommireddi Subrahmanyam Reddy, S/o. not known to the petitioner, R/o. Nagavaram Village, Chitvel Mandal, 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in granting the licence to the 5th respondent herein to open the shop in the premises at D.No. 5/3 of Nagavaram Village, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the Rules made under Rule 29 of the AP Indian Liquor and Foreign Rules 1970 and against the Rules under the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Indian and Foreign Liquor Retail Sale Conditions of Licences) Rules 1993 and consequently direct the official respondents not to permit the 5th respondent to establish the shop at D.No. 5/3 of Nagavaram Village, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SUBASH Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondent No.4: Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this public interest litigation, the petitioner has alleged that respondent No.5 has been permitted to deal in liquor by giving him licence to sell Indian and foreign liquor in violation of the provisions of Rule 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of Rule 27 of the Rules, the premises where liquor is permitted to be sold should be at least 100 meters away from the places of public worship, educational institutions, highways and hospitals. It is the case of the petitioner that in the instant case, the said rule has been violated because there is a government school which is within 100 meters from the place where permission to sell liquor has been granted by the respondent official authorities. 3. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed and in pursuance of a direction given by this Court, an Advocate Commissioner had been appointed so as to ascertain whether the allegation made in the petition with regard to the distance is correct. 4. We have perused the report submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner along with the sketch prepared by her which has been placed on record of this Court. Upon perusal of the sketch, it is very clear that the distance as calculated in the manner provided under Rule 27 (3) is 105.20 meters, if a pedestrian walks on the nearest side of the road and if the pedestrian crosses the road and reaches the school, then the distance would be 116.23 meters. 5. Thus, it is very clear that the distance between the place where the liquor is permitted to be sold and the place where the school is situated is more than 100 meters. 6. It is pertinent to note that the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that a pedestrian can also cross the road in a crisscross manner and in that event, the distance can also be reduced. 7. We do not accept the said submission because normally no pedestrian would be permitted to cross road in a manner which would obstruct the traffic. The sketch which has been submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner clearly reveals that the distance between the school and the place where the liquor is permitted to be sold is more than 100 meters. 8. In view of the above fact, we are satisfied that the permission granted to respondent No. 5 is not in violation of the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules. 9. The petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17th February, 2009 ks