HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.21689, 21747 and 30124 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These three Writ Petitions raise common issues. Hence, they are being disposed of together. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. I have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise representing the respondents. The petitioners are A-4 licensees who are permitted to sell liquor in retail. Before the petitioners have chosen their premises, a notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 29.10.2008, for road widening. The premises selected by the petitioners and approved by the respondents were also included in the said notification. In view of the proposed acquisition, when the petitioners approached the respondents for permission to shift their shops to other premises, the respondents have accorded permission to the petitioners, subject to their paying 1% of lease amount or Rs.25,000/- whichever is higher. This condition subject to which the petitioners were granted permission to shift the premises is questioned in these Writ Petitions. According to the petitioners, as the circumstances forced them to shift the premises, there is no justification for the respondents to levy the shifting fees. Rule 29 (3) of A.P. Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of license) Rules, 2005, (for short ‘the Rules’) which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under: - “Shifting of the licensed premises may be permitted for valid reasons within the notified area and subject to conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, subject to payment of 1% of the lease amount or Rs.25,000/- whichever is higher.” It is not disputed that even before the petitioners selected the premises, notification under the Act was issued, whereunder the premises in question were notified for acquisition. It is, thus, evident that the petitioners have taken the risk of selecting the premises which were already notified for acquisition. As the Rules envisaged payment of fees as a condition for shifting and the circumstances warranting shifting are not attributable to any act of the respondents, the petitioners cannot avoid payment of shifting fees in terms of the above reproduced Rule. As such, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in levy and payment of shifting fees by the respondents. On the above analysis, I do not find any merit in these Writ Petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petitions, interim orders, dated 03.09.2010 in W.P.M.P.Nos.27664 and 27594 of 2010 are vacated, and W.P.M.P.Nos.2766 and 27594 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th November 2011 DR