HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.13331 OF 2010 DATE: 25.10.2010 Between: Y.Lakshman Rao …… Petitioner And: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) and others …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.13331 OF 2010 ORDER:(per Honourable Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri K.L.N.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Excise for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is filed for the following relief: “to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not imposing a condition in The Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 and The Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules to produce a registered lease deed by the successful tenderer before issuing licence in favour of the successful tenderer is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to insist for production of registered lease deed by the successful tenderer from the premises owner before issuing 2B and A4 licence under A.P.Excise Act & Rules and to pass such other orders as are necessary in the interest of justice”. Without stating any basis for the grievance, the petitioner has filed the writ petition aggrieved by the absence of a condition in the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 and the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005; of a provision requiring the production of a registered lease deed from an applicant for an excise licence executed by the owner of a premises. It is pleaded that the two sets of 2005 Rules which are issued in exercise of the powers under Section 72 read with Section 17, 28 and 29 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, contain a requirement that an applicant should produce a lease deed on a stamp paper of the proposed premises of the shop, but incorporate no requirement that such lease deed should be under a registered instrument. It is contended that Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 requires all leases of immovable property of a term exceeding one year to be by registered instruments; that the Stamp Act, 1881 prescribes stamp duty as payable for a lease deed and that not insisting on a registered lease deed not only violates the provisions of these substantive laws, but also deprives the State of revenues by way of stamp duty and registration fees. The petitioner has not pleaded in what manner he is aggrieved by the absence of such prescription as is contended for. In oral argument, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the premises which he has given on lease to an individual who has applied for A-4 licence under the 2005 Rules which are issued for two years on each occasion; that the employment of the premises for running a retail wine shop is causing disturbance in the locality and is also affecting the domestic tranquility of the petitioner. The pleadings are however silent on this aspect. Be that as it may. If the licencee of the petitioner’s premises has violated the terms of the lease or has otherwise conducted business, in any manner warranting initiation of due process for cancellation of the lease or for his eviction, the remedy of the petitioner is to pursue appropriate steps before the appropriate fora for such relief. There is no law, which requires that the Rules made under the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 should incorporate a condition that the lease shall be registered. If an un-registered lease is invalid, then the petitioner, if aggrieved, may take recourse to appropriate remedies for evicting the person in whose favour the unstamped and unregistered lease deed has been executed, but, which is inoperative in the absence of registration and payment of stamp duty. The relief sought herein is a strategy adopted by the petitioner in a public process to obtain reliefs which are purely in the private law domain. The writ petition is seen to be in abuse of the process of law and is accordingly dismissed, but however without costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date:25.10.2010. ksh