IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15805 of 2010 Between: B. Basi Reddy ... PETITIONER a n d The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by B. Basi Reddy seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad –first respondent on the application made by him for shifting the bar and restaurant viz., Eagle Restaurant and Bar from the premises bearing D.No.2-484(1), ITI Circle, Kadapa city and district to the premises bearing D.No.2/371-1/A, Balajinagar, Kadapa city and district as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner possessed form No.2B licence to run a bar and restaurant viz., Eagle Restaurant and Bar. Some disputes cropped up with regard to location of his bar and restaurant. Some of the persons who raised objection for location of the bar and restaurant of the petitioner in the premises bearing D.No.2-484(1), ITI Circle, Kadapa city and district approached this Court by filing writ petitions. 3. The petitioner also approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15379 of 2007. The writ petitions filed by the persons who objected the petitioner’s continuation of the bar and restaurant in the premises bearing D.No.2-484(1) and the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of by a common order dated 13-12-2008 vide W.P.Nos.22202 of 2006, 15379 of 2007 and 16583 of 2008. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “Thus, it is clear that necessary steps have already been initiated by the Corporation to cancel the trade licenses which were earlier issued in violation of Master Plan Zoning Regulations. At any rate no Mandamus can be issued to perpetuate the illegality and therefore the Municipal Corporation cannot be compelled to act contrary to Zoning Regulations merely on the ground that some of the traders in the locality are allowed to carry on the business. For the aforesaid reasons, the action of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation in rejecting NOC sought by the 5th respondent does not suffer from any infirmity and warrants no interference by this Court. Consequently, the 5th respondent is not entitled for renewal of his Form-2B licence for the year 2007-08 much less for the year 2008-09. Hence, the renewal of licence granted by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent by order dated 07-07-2008 for the year 2008-09 which is impugned in W.P.No.16583 of 2008 being illegal is liable to be set aside. For the very same reasons the show-cause notice issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, for cancellation of Form-2B licence for the year 2007-08 which is the subject matter of W.P.No.15379 of 2007 warrants no interference. However, since the excise year 2007-08 has expired during the pendency of the writ petitions and 5th respondent carried on the business till the expiry of the excise year 2007-08, that apart of the writ petition is rendered superfluous. In the result, W.P.No.22202 of 2006 is dismissed and W.P.No.16583 of 2008 shall stand allowed setting aside the impugned orders dated 02-07-2008 and 07-07-2008. W.P.No.15379 of 2007 shall also stand dismissed. However, there shall be a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Cuddapah to complete the proceedings for cancellation of the trade licenses in respect of the shops which are found to be objectionable as per the Master Plan and Zoning Regulations within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, if not already cancelled. There shall also be a direction to the licensing authority under the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, to take consequential steps following due process of law wherever the licenses granted under the A.P. Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder are found to be contrary to law. No costs.” 4. The petitioner claims to have made an application for shifting of his bar and restaurant and also for renewal of licence. The said application is stated to be pending. There being no action of the said application the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought for the relief stated supra. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. The limited grievance of the petitioner is as to non- consideration of his application enclosing all the necessary permissions granted by the competent authorities for shifting of the bar and restaurant from the premises bearing D.No.2-484(1), ITI Circle, Kadapa city and district to the premises bearing D.No.2/371-1/A, Balajinagar, Kadapa city and district. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the licence issued earlier is not in force, therefore, the question of considering the request of the petitioner does not arise on the self- same licence which has already been lapsed. 9. Be that as it may, the application filed by the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondents. In that view of the matter, there shall be direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Condition of Licence) Rules, 2005 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 06, 2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15805 of 2010 July 06, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. B/o.PN