IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.5843 of 2010 Between: B.Rajkumar Goud. … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary for Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Raghu. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 8-3-2010, whereby respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioner’s applications for permission for running a bar and restaurant and conducting live band/orchestra. The petitioner was running a bar and restaurant in the premises in respect of which he applied for fresh Police License, prior to 2005. Later it was closed. Recently the petitioner submitted two applications for permissions as noted above. As regards the application for license for running a bar and restaurant, the same was rejected mainly on the ground that as per G.O.Ms.No.86, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 3-3-2006, for a bar and restaurant having a built up area of 204.86 Sq. meters, an area admeasuring 82 Sq. meters should be made available for exclusive parking. “No objection certificate” issued by the management of Manju theatre in the year 2004 was rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that one Sri Gurpreet Singh, who is the son of the owner of the Manju theatre, informed the officer concerned, during enquiry, that there is no agreement between the petitioner the Manju theatre management for parking the vehicles of the bar and restaurant on the rear side of the said theatre. Another reason given by respondent No.2 for rejection of the petitioner’s application was, no valid “No Objection Certificate” from the District Fire Officer was enclosed to the said application and the no objection certificate enclosed was nine years old. Respondent No.2 further pointed out that the bar and restaurant is located in the cellar of the building and no evidence has been produced to show that the place is not meant for parking purpose and that the same can be used for commercial purpose. Similar reasons have been assigned by respondent No.2 for rejecting the petitioner’s application for conducting live band/ orchestra. In paragraph 8 of the order, respondent No.2 has assigned additional reasons as to the desirability of prohibiting such activities. At the hearing, Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is prepared to make good the deficiencies pointed out by respondent No.2 by producing the no objection certificates from the management of the Manju theatre for parking of the vehicles and the District Fire Officer; and also the evidence to show that the place where the bar and restaurant is being run is permitted for carrying on commercial activities. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2 along with evidence in support of the aspects referred to above. If such a representation is made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall re-examine and dispose of the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ----------------------------- ------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:15-3-2010. Note: Issue CC by 17-3-2010 (BO) MNR