HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24866 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent and the learned Govt. Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. Although interlocutory applications are listed for hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposed of finally by this order. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the official respondents in granting prior clearance/provisional sanction to the 6th respondent for establishment of a bar in the name and style of “M/s. Madhuvani Restaurant & Bar” in the premises bearing No.25/179, Hanuman Junction Road, Nuzvid, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the Rules and Regulations issued in G.O. Ms. No. 723, dated 2.8.2010 and G.O. Ms. No. 734, dated 4.8.2010. A consequential direction was also sought to set aside the proceedings dated 3.9.2010. The petitioners are the licensees in Form-A4 to sell liquor in retail in Nuzvid Town. One late B. Krishna Reddy has applied for grant of prior clearance to seek licence for establishing a bar and restaurant in the name and style of “Madhuvani Restaurant and Bar”. During his lifetime, the prior clearance orders were issued by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner exercising powers under the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence for Selling to Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 framed under Section 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,1968 (for short ‘the Act’). Unfortunately, the said Krishna Reddy died on 6.5.2010. On 7.5.2010, there was a representation by one G. Srinivasa Reddy, who is the brother-in- law of late Krishna Reddy (wife’s brother), to transfer that clearance order in the name of the 6th respondent. The Prohibition Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada vide proceedings dated 28.5.2010 has recommended for transfer of prior clearance in the name of the 6th respondent. Based on the said proposal, the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, has issued orders dated 3.9.2010 transferring the prior clearance in favour of the 6th respondent, which was originally granted in the name of her husband, late Krishna Reddy. In this writ petition, the said transfer orders dated 3.9.2010 are questioned by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the prior clearance granted in favour of the 6th respondent is in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 723, Revenue(Ex.II) Department, dated 2.8.2010 and also the policy guidelines issued in G.O. Ms. No.734, Revenue(Ex.II) Department, dated 4.8.2010. Counter affidavits are filed by the 6th respondent. Sri K Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the transfer of prior clearance in favour of the 6th respondent is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.723, dated 2.8.2010. He further submitted that as per the eligibility guidelines, notified by the Government vide the aforesaid G.O., where the population is upto three lakhs, only one bar is permissible and since there are already two bars existing in the Nuzvid Town, no licence can be granted in favour of the 6th respondent. He further submitted that when in identical circumstances, the authorities have rejected the applications of similarly situated persons, the authorities ought not to have granted prior clearance in favour of the 6th respondent. On the other hand, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 6th respondent would contend that in this case, prior clearance was issued in the name of late Krishna Reddy on 5.5.2010, which was prior to the guidelines issued by the Government vide G.O. Ms. Nos. 723 and 734, dated 2.8.2010 and 4.8.2010. He further submitted that basing on the application for transfer of prior clearance submitted by the 6th respondent, the Excise Superintendent recommended for such transfer vide his proceedings dated 28.5.2010, which is also much prior to the policy guidelines notified by the Government by the aforesaid G.Os., and therefore, those G.Os., would not be applicable to the case of the 6th respondent. On a perusal of the Governmental Orders issued vide G.O.Ms. Nos. 723 and 734, dated 2.8.2010 and 4.8.2010, it is seen that the Government issued certain guidelines for sanction of new licences for the excise year 2010-11. In the present case, there is no licence yet issued by the Licensing Authority. It is also to be noted that prior clearance was already issued in the name of the late husband of the 6th respondent on 5.5.2010, who died on 6.5.2010, a day after the issuance of such clearance. Thereafter, a representation was filed on 7.5.2010 seeking transfer of such prior clearance in the name of the 6th respondent. Admittedly, either as on the date of grant of clearance in the name of late Krishna Reddy or as on the date of application submitted for transfer of such prior clearance in favour of the 6th respondent, the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Government were not in operation. If the petitioners are having any objection for grant of licence in favour of the 6th respondent, they can as well approach the licensing authority and raise the aforesaid objections by bringing to his notice that the transfer of prior clearance in favour of the 6th respondent is contrary to the policy guidelines issued by the Government vide G.O. Ms. Nos. 723 and 734, dated 2.8.2010 and 4.8.2010. Hence, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the 1st respondent and raise all the objections that they intend to raise before the said Authority. If such objections are filed by the petitioners, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 24th December, 2010 pnb