IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 268 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/03/2008 in WP NO : 1519 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Vodela Raju S/o.Late Damodar R/o.Warangal, Form B.2, Licence,of M/s.Rukmini Restaurant and Bar, at H.No.4-304/1 Ramaram-Bheemaram village, Hasnparthi Mandal, Warangal District 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division at Warangal. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, at Warangal. 4 Vodela Raju S/o.Late Damodar R/o. Warangal, Warangal District. Form B-2 license of M/s. Rukmini Restaurant and Bar, at H.No.4-304/1, Ramaram, Bheemaram Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 A.Sudhakar S/o.Mallaiah R/o.Yellam Bazar, Warangal, A-4 license of M/s. Sai S.S.S. Wines at H.No.19-10-204, Rangsaipet, Warangal. 2 The Commissioner Prohibition & Excise, at Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy commissioner , Prohibition & Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal 4 The Prohibiton & Excise Superintendent, Warangal .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.BALAMUKUNDA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : Judgment: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) By virtue of this appeal, the interim order passed in W.V.M.P.No. 369 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.No.1835 of 2008 in W.P.No.1519 of 2008 has been challenged. The appellant is having a Bar licence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). By virtue of the condition of the licence issued to the appellant, the appellant had to carry out his business at a particular place and in normal circumstances he cannot shift his place of business. Rule 13 (3) of the said Rules provides as under: “(13) Sale permitted at the licensed premises only:- (1) ……. (2) …….. (3) No shifting of the licensed premises shall ordinarily be permitted during the licence period from one location to another. However, the shifting of the licenced premises under Form 2-B may be considered by the Commissioner subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as shifting fee, if the shifting of the original licensed premises of Hotel and Restaurant is permitted by the local authority.” The appellant had made a request for shifting of his licensed premises and permission was granted by the concerned authorities. Because of the permission to shift the licensed premises, the appellant has to shift his business to the area where respondent No.1 is doing his business of selling liquor. The present respondent No.1 has been given A4 licence whereby he has been permitted to do his business under the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005. It is pertinent to note that for having the licence to sell liquor under the aforestated Rules, respondent No.1 had participated at an auction and had offered the highest bid. A person participating in the bid, normally would know that the number of liquor shops selling liquor would not be changed during the period for which he was given licence and therefore after considering the relevant factors, he would offer the bid amount. Because of the said permission granted to the present appellant for shifting his place of business, respondent No.1 had filed his objections and ultimately he has filed Writ Petition No. 1519 of 2008 challenging the shifting of the licenced premises of the present appellant on the ground that by permitting the present appellant to shift his place, his business would be adversely affected. He has further stated in the petition that there was no special reason made out by the present appellant for change of place of his business and, therefore, the permission for change of his licenced premises should not have been granted. After hearing the learned Advocates, the learned single Judge has granted interim relief in favour of respondent No.1 whereby the present appellant has been restrained from shifting his licenced premises where he is permitted to do business. Learned Advocate Sri P.Balamukunda Rao appearing for the appellant has submitted that respondent No.1 has no locus to challenge the impugned order whereby the appellant was permitted to shift his licenced premises. It has been further submitted that no assurance was ever given to respondent No.1 that there would not be any protection for doing business in the area in which respondent No.1 has been given the licence. Learned Advocate has relied upon several judgments so as to substantiate his case. We have heard the learned Advocates and considered the facts of the case. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly granted interim relief in favour of respondent No.1. As stated hereinabove, respondent No.1 had participated in an auction and had offered highest amount for doing business in a particular Mandal/area. By virtue of the impugned order whereby the appellant is permitted to shift his place of business, the appellant would be permitted to start his business within the Mandal/area where respondent No.1 has been permitted to do his business and the proposed action of the respondents-Government authorities would adversely affect the business of respondent No.1. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 has no locus standi to challenge the order whereby the appellant has been permitted to shift his place of business. In our opinion, when a person who wants to do business of selling liquor at a particular place, he will normally consider several factors, such as, number of competitors in the area and the number of adjacent bars etc., before determining the amount which he would like to offer at the auction. Rule 13 (3) of the said Rules has been incorporated in the Rules so that, in the normal circumstances permission is not granted for shifting the licenced premises. We have not seen any special or compelling reason for which the licenced premises has been permitted to be shifted. We do not see any justifiable reason for which the appellant was permitted to shift his licenced premises. For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, prima facie, it appears that the learned single Judge is absolutely justified in protecting respondent No.1. Needless to say that the aforestated observations may not be considered by the learned single Judge while deciding the petition finally. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 14th March, 2008 GRR