THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.26625 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 13.09.2010 issued by respondent No.2, namely the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of prior clearance for establishment of a Bar and Restaurant. The petitioners states that he submitted application in Form-1A on 17.09.2008, for grant of prior clearance, for 2009-10 for establishment of a Bar and Restaurant within the limits of Tirupati Municipal Corporation, by fulfilling all the required formalities, as is required in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 997, dated 24.05.2005. Respondent Nos. 3 and 5, the petitioner states that having considered his application made recommendations, stating that the petitioner had fulfilled all the requirements, which are required to be fulfilled by him, under Rule 6 of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’). The petitioner states that even though several other persons also submitted applications for starting Bar and Restaurants within the limits of Tirupati Municipal Corporation, but on inspection, the official respondents found that those applicants did not fulfil the requisite conditions. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that even though, he alone has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated under Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules, and even though there are recommendations made by respondent Nos. 3 and 5, recommending his case for grant of licence, respondent No.2, passed the impugned order, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of prior clearance for establishment of Bar and Restaurant. Hence, this writ petition. After several adjournments, respondent No.2 filed counter- affidavit on behalf of all the respondents. In the counter, he has taken a stand that inadvertently a typographical mistake occurred in the impugned order, in that, instead of typing Municipal Corporation of Tirupati, it was wrongly typed as Municipal Corporation of Chittoor. It is stated that the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 723, dated 02.08.2010, prescribing eligibility criteria for opening a fresh bar in any Municipality/Municipal Corporation basing on 2001 census population and that in the light of the said G.O., he considered the application of the petitioner along with other applications and rejected the same. It is further stated that the petitioner has not produced the trade licence issued by the Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, which is mandatory for grant of prior clearance and for issuance of 2B licence. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise. The impugned order dated 13.09.2010 reads as under: “Their applications have been examined in terms of the policy guidelines issued by the Government in the references cited, grant of new bar licences for 2010-11. As per the above guidelines the Municipal Corporation of Chittoor is eligible to have (7) Bars and the existing number of Bars is (18). Hence, there is no scope for grant of any new Bar license in the said Municipal Corporation. Therefore, all the above applications are hereby rejected.” Even though the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, tried to justify the impugned order, the same cannot be sustained, since in the report of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, FAC, Tirupati, dated 17.09.2009, it is clearly stated that respondent No.5, namely the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tirupati, had reported that the proposed bar at the location in question, does not violate the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules, and that only one A4 shop is existing at a distance of 300 meters in Tirupati Municipal Corporation. Having taken note of this fact, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, observed that “the request of the applicant for grant of prior clearance for establishment of Restaurant & Bar for the year 2009-10 may kindly be considered”. Thus from the recitals of the report of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendence, FAC, Tirupati, it becomes clear that he favoured and recommended grant of prior clearance to the petitioner. However, respondent No.2 without applying his mind and without considering the report of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, FAC, Tirupati, which is based on the report of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tirupati, merely rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of prior clearance, which cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration and passing appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 23.12.2010 va