THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 7054 OF 2010 Dated 29th March, 2010 Between: Akuthota Satish Kumar …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise And two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.Ravinder Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner’s application for grant of prior clearance having been rejected by respondent No.1, the petitioner filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the said rejection for a Mandamus to set aside the same. I have heard Sri A.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner applied for grant of prior clearance for the excise year 2007-08 for establishment of a bar and restaurant within the limits of Warangal Municipal Corporation. The said application was rejected. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22705 of 2008. The petitioner withdrew the said writ petition as fresh proposals for grant of prior clearance were being considered by respondent No.1. Accordingly, the petitioner made a fresh application, which was forwarded by respondent No.2 with the reports of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector and himself. The said proposals were again rejected by respondent No.1 through the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 purported to have considered the report of respondent No.2 and referred to Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of licence of selling by bar and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short “the Rules”). Further noting that there is already one A-4 shop and two bars functioning within 200 meters from the proposed premises, respondent No.1 observed that respondent No.2 has not recommended specifically to grant prior clearance for establishment of the bar and that obviously there is no need for another bar in the locality. Respondent No.1 further observed that any additional bar would lead to unhealthy competition among the licensees. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed the reports of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector and respondent No.2. In his report dated 06.07.2009, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, who is the Station House Officer, Warangal (Urban), stated that the location of the proposed bar is not in violation of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules and that the A-4 Shop licensee and also the two bar licensees have submitted their no objection letters for establishment of the proposed bar and restaurant. Respondent No.2 also in his report, sent along with recommendations in respect of various other proposals, referred to the abovementioned report of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector and observed that “the application may be considered on merits as recommended by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Warangal”. Ordinarily grant of prior clearance or a licence is rejected either on account of violation of Rule 6 of the Rules or on the ground of absence of viability. As evident from the abovementioned report of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, both these grounds do not exist. Respondent No.1 has not referred to the contents of the said report and merely assumed that establishment of one more bar and restaurant may lead to unhealthy competition. When the licensees in the vicinity have themselves given no objection, there does not appear to be any justification for respondent No.1 to draw the inference that establishment of a new bar may lead to unhealthy competition. In my considered opinion, respondent No.1 has not applied his mind properly to the facts of the case in rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of prior licence. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration in the light of the report of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector and pass order within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th March, 2010 vrn