IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 19143 of 2004 BETWEEN: 1 K. Thyagaraju, S/o. Sivanappa, D.No.10-4-491, Market Area, Rayadurg, Anantapur District, Licencee of M/s. Sree Rama Wines. 2 K. Sivaprasad, S/o. Puttanna, D.No.10-5-656(1), K.B. Palace road Rayadurg, Anantapur District, Licencee of M/s. Lavanya Wines. 3 K. Babu, S/o. K. Siddappa, D.No.9-3-373(1), Back Side of Club, Lakshmi Bazar, Rayadurg, Anantapur District, Licencee of M/s. Hanuman Wines. 4 A. Brahmaiah, S/o. A. Venkatesulu, D.No.7-4-576 BTP Road, Rayadurg, Anantapur District, Licencee of M/s. Theja Wines. 5 P. Sreenivasulu, S/o. P. Jitendrappa, D.No.1-5-626(B) side Shantinagar, Rayadurg, Anantapur district, Licencee of M/s. Theja Wines. ... PETITIONERS AND Rayadurg Municipality, Rayadurg, Anantapur District, Rep. by its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondent in demanding the petitioners to pay trade licence fee and initiating prosecution as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.S.I. NEWTON The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners submit that they were IL-24 licencees granted under the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short ‘the Rules’) for the excise year 2003-2004. While so, the respondent issued notices stating that they have not taken the licences or renewed their licences as required under Section 263 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act (for short ‘the Act’) and called upon them to submit explanation as to why penalty should not be imposed for conducting business without obtaining/renewing the licence as required under Schedule 6 and 7 of the Act and demanded them to pay Rs.8,000/- towards trade licence fee. 2. Petitioners further submit that they as tenants or landlords are paying house taxes for their respective premises and there is no legal requirement to take trade licence for the sale of Indian made Foreign Liquor in sealed bottles and the service of the respondent corporation is not at all required as there would not be any pollution or any garbage by the reason of their carrying on the business. They further submit that they purchase sealed bottles and sell the sealed bottles without allowing any consumption and there are no food articles sold at their premises. They further submit that their licences are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and the rules made thereunder. 3. Petitioners further submit that this issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Y. VENKATESWAR RAO v. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT [1] in favour of the petitioners.. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and following the aforesaid judgment, the wit petition is allowed subject to the condition that if any of the petitioners is running a Bar and Restaurant, they shall be liable to pay the trade licence fee. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 21, 2008 DSK [1] 2006 (1) ALT 443