THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 18420 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioner participated in the auction of leasehold rights of A4 shop at Sl. No.215. The petitioner, who became the highest bidder, was granted excise licence by respondent No.2, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ranga Reddy Division, to run his business in liquor, in the name and style of M/s. Vaishnavi Wines in the premises in question, bearing Door No. 1-1-30/60/7, G.R. Reddynagar Colony, GHMC, Ward No.2, Cherlapally, No.1 (area of Old Ward No.3), Kapra Municipality, Ranga Redy District, for the excise years 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2012, based on the certificate dated 25.06.2010, issued by respondent No.4, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kapra, Hyderabad. It appears that respondent No. 5, who was also allotted licence, to run his business in Ward No.2, based on the letter dated 06.07.2010 obtained by him from respondent No. 4 stating that the premises in which the shop of the petitioner is located, does not fall in Ward No.2, but falls in Ward No. 1, lodged a complaint before respondent No.1, namely Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, stating that the premises in which the petitioner is running his business falls in Ward No.1, but the petitioner by producing false document, had established his shop in Ward No. 2. Acting on the said complaint, respondent No.1, conducted an enquiry, and considering the letter dated 06.07.2010, issued by respondent No.4 stating that the premises in question falls in Ward No.1 and that since G.R. Reddy Nagar, H. No. 1-1-30/ an all by numbers fall in erstwhile Ward No.3 and present Ward No.2, and that the information provided to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.06.2010 is by oversight, vide orders dated 09.07.2010, directed the petitioner to shift his business from the premises in question, which falls in Ward No.1, to a new premises in Ward No. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ranga Reddy District, who by orders dated 21.07.2010 dismissed the same. Questioning the said order, passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner filed this writ petition. This Court by order dated 28.07.2010 while ordering notice before admission, granted interim stay of the impugned order. Praying to vacate the said order, respondent No.5 vacate stay petition in W.P.M.P. No. 3550 supported by his counter-affidavit. Respondent No.1 also filed counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 issued letter dated 25.06.2010 stating that the premises in question falls in Ward No. 2, and since respondent No. 2, based on the said letter, issued the licence to run his liquor business in the premises in question, which falls in Ward No.2, the petitioner legitimately expected that he would not be disturbed and would be continued in the premises in question until the expiry of the licence period, but the action of respondent No.1 in issuing orders dated 09.07.2010, as confirmed by respondent No.2 vide orders dated 21.07.2010, based on the letter dated 06.07.2010 issued by respondent No.4, holding that the premises in question falls in Ward No.1 and directing him to shift his shop to another premises falling in Ward No.2, is illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that the petitioner before respondent No.1 has admitted that the premises in which he is running the liquor business falls in Ward No.1, and upon respondent No.1 directing the petitioner to shift his shop to a new premises falling in Ward No.2, he filed appeal before respondent No.2, and after dismissal of the appeal by respondent No.2 by order dated 09.07.2010, the petitioner sought 15 days time to shift the shop, but respondent No. 1 granted him only seven days time to shift, which expired on 26.07.2010. However, the petitioner concealing the said facts and instead of shifting the shop to a new premises falling in Ward No.2, filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5. As respondent No.4, issued two different letters, one to the petitioner stating that the premises in which he is doing business falls in Ward No.2 and the other to respondent No.5 stating that it falls in Ward No.1, to resolve the dispute as to in which Ward, the premises in question falls, this Court directed respondent No. 4 to appear before the Court along with the record and maps of the area. The map of the area, produced by respondent No.4 before the Court, would disclose that the premises in question bearing Door No.1-1-3-/60/7, in which the petitioner is carrying on his business falls in Ward No.1. Inasmuch as the petitioner was granted licence to run his business in a premises falling in Ward No.2, and having regard to the fact that the premises in question, in which the petitioner is doing business fall in Ward No.1, no exception can be taken to the order dated 21.07.2010, passed by respondent No.2 confirming the order dated 09.07.2010 of respondent No.1, directing the petitioner to shift his business from the premises in question, which falls in Ward No.1 to a premises falling in Ward No.2. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner undertook that the petitioner would shift his shop to a new premises in Ward No.2 within 15 day. He further submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are demanding him to pay shifting fee, and contended that since there is no fault on his part in establishing the shop in the premises in question, which he established based on the licence, issued by respondent No.2, who had issued the same on the strength of letter dated 25.06.2010, issued by respondent No.4, respondent Nos. 1 to 3, be directed not to insist payment of shifting fee. The learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submitted that when shifting is effected, the licencee has to pay the shifting fee, and petitioner is no exception. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner, as undertaken by his counsel, shall shift his shop from the premises in question to a new premises falling in Ward No.2, within 15 days from today. The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 requesting them to exempt him from paying the shifting fee. If any such representation is made, respondent Nos. 1 to 3, shall having regard to the fact that the establishment of shop by the petitioner in the premises in question, is not because of his fault, but for the reasons stated supra, consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Since the present problem of shifting of the shop premises in question by the petitioner arose because of the negligence on the part of the officials of respondent No.4, the petitioner, if he has sustained any loss in his business, is at liberty to claim damages from respondent No.4, if he so advised. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 13th September, 2010 KSR