IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.13488 OF 2010 DATED:23.06.2010 Between: K. Dhanalakshmi … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Excise and Prohibition Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.13488 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in allotting the wine shop licence in favour of Thamminedi Rama Mohan Rao – fifth respondent in respect of Mutyalapalli Village, Mogaltur Mandal, West Godavari District, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently to issue direction to respondents 1 to 4 to grant licence to the petitioner in respect of Mutyalapalli Village for the excise year 2010-2012. The petitioner claims to be an illiterate woman belonging to Backward Class community. Her husband – Katta Mutyala Rao died on 01.07.2004 due to drowning in Upputeru drain during the raids conducted by the excise officials at the instance of liquor syndicate. According to her, she is the only bread winner in the family consisting of herself, her two daughters, aged 10 and 8 years respectively, her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law. She sought financial assistance from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund through the Member of Legislative Assembly, Penugonda. The Revenue Divisional Officer has recommended for payment of the amount under Apathbandu Scheme. However, the amount has not been paid to her. The District Collector recommended for sanction of assistance of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. The recommendation made by the District Collector came to be rejected by the Joint Secretary to Government. Respondents 1 to 3 called for tenders for wine shop licence in the village for 2006-08 by enhancing 5% of the previous excise year price and thereby fixing the upset price as Rs.15,84,000/-. The highest bid was Rs.16,40,476/-. Similarly, for the excise year 2008-10 the upset price was fixed at Rs.18,22,751/- by adding 10% to the highest bid of the previous year. The District Colletor, West Godavari District – third respondent issued gazette notification dt.27.5.2010 inviting tenders for allotment of liquor licence for the excise year 2010-2012 for various villages and towns in West Godavari District including Mutyalapalli Village by fixing upset price at Rs.25,26,166/-. The petitioner made a representation to the fourth respondent – Gram Panchayat for allotment of wine shop licence in her favour. Basing on the representation, fourth respondent – Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 21.4.2010 recommending to the third respondent – District Collector, West Godavari District, at Eluru, for allotment of wine shop to the petitioner. The fourth respondent – Gram Panchayat passed another Resolution dt.16.5.2010 recommending granting of licence in favour of the petitioner by adding 30% to the upset price fixed by the District Collector, West Godavari District – third respondent and the petitioner submitted tender on 05.6.2010 by quoting Rs.59,99,999/- by paying E.M.D. by obtaining loan from private persons. However, fifth respondent became the highest bidder having offered Rs.1,08,45,999/-. Assailing the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not allotting the shop to the petitioner, in spite of resolution passed by the Sarpanch recommending her name for allotment of shop, she approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer stated supra. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the excise authorities have to take into consideration the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat recommending the name of the petitioner for allotment of excise shop to the petitioner and since the excise authorities have not taken into consideration of the same, the allotment of shop to the fifth respondent is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Madhu Wines v. Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II) Dept.,[1] and much emphasis has been laid on paragraph 62 of the said judgment which reads as under: “Under the existing Panchayat Raj system, the permission of the Gram Panchayat, by a resolution, is needed even for the purpose of establishing any industry or to establish a market etc., to see that the activities undertaken in such places do not have any deleterious effect on the residents of the village. There is no reason why the view of the Panchayat, be it in the Gramsabha or the Gram Panchayat, be not required before a licence is granted for establishing bars or wine shops in that village. The residents of the village, particularly the women folk, would be in a position to know as to who exactly are the persons responsible for brining about such shops, and take remedial steps. Entrusting the Gram Panchayat or local bodies with the control and regulation of such shops in coordination with the excise officials go a very long way, in containing the menace. Committees at village levels can be constituted on par with the existing Education Committees, Irrigation Committees etc.” The grievance of the petitioner is that third respondent has not taken into consideration the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat – fourth respondent recommending allotment of wine shop to her. Writ of Mandamus is a preemptory order of the Court commanding somebody to do that which he is under a clear legal duty to do. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of Mandamus, the applicant must show that she has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the Mandamus is sought, and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. Neither the A.P. Excise Act nor the Rules framed under the A.P. Excise Act contemplate taking the view of the Panchayats in respect of the allotment of shops to a particular category of persons. The decision on which reliance has been placed is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has no statutory or legal right to claim allotment of shop despite her being lowest tenderer. In that view of the matter, I find that the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _________________________ (B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 23.06.2010 bnr [1] 2005 (3) ALT 137