* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM + WRIT PETITION NO. 16491 of 2008 % TUESDAY, 26T H DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT #BADIGA SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA … Petitioner versus $THE GOVERNMENT OF A.P., EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : MR. O. MANOHER REDDY ^ Counsel for the respondents : GOVT. PLEADER FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE 1 TO 4, G. VENKATESWARLU, CAVEATOR FOR RESPONDENT NO.5 < Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16491 of 2008 Between: Badiga Sri Lakshminarayana, S/o. Chalapathi Rao, M/s. Jai Sri Hanuman Wines, R/o. Avanigadda, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Excise Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep by its Principal Secretary 2 The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 5 M/s. Vijayalakshmi Bar and Restaurant, Avanigadda, Rep by its Proprietor, M. Nageswara Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 67 years, R/o. Avanigadda Village and Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in granting licence in favour of the 5th respondent for establishing Bar and Restaurant vide proceedings in Cr.No. 7893/CPE/2007/M2 dated 04-7-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rules and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 to 4.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondent No.5-Caveator: Sri G. Venkateswarlu The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The Writ Petition is misconceived, is speculative and has no legal foundation. The petitioner assails the grant of a Form 2B licence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Bar Rules 2005’). The syllogism of the petitioner’s grievance runs as under: The petitioner was granted a licence to sell liquor by shop under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licences) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Shop Rules 2005’) for the period 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2010. In the notiﬁcation that led to the grant of a Form A- 4 licence to the petitioner, the petitioner was not sensitized to the possibility of a bar and restaurant licence being granted in future in the vicinity of the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner nurtured a hope that there would be no competition for the vending of liquor by shop from a bar and restaurant licence and therefore he bid a high amount i.e., Rs.59,99,999/- for the 2-year period of his licence. However on an application by the 5th respondent for grant of a Form 2B licence, the 2nd respondent had granted approval for facilitating grant of licence to the 5th respondent. As a consequence, the petitioner suffers a diminution of his business. As is apparent from the core pleadings adverted to above, the petitioner does not canvass the legitimacy of the grant of licence to the 5th respondent as being in transgression of any legal regime either under the Shop Rules 2005 or the Bar Rules 2005. The petitioner’s expectation that he would face no competition in business through a bar and restaurant is not an expectation that is founded upon any legal right. It is not a legitimate expectation. It may be a hope or a desire but not a lawful and legitimate expectation protected by law. The petitioner does not also canvass either expressly or by any compelling implication that in granting licence to the 5th respondent, the oﬃcial respondents have violated any obligation or transgressed a promissory estoppel. No promise was even made to the petitioner either expressly or impliedly, no licence for establishing a bar and restaurant would in future be granted in proximity of the petitioner’s business premises. It is axiomatic that existence of a legal right is the foundation for grant of Mandamus. Mandamus is never granted to satiate a mere desire or a speculative assumption. There are no merits. The Writ Petition is misconceived as framed; beseeches rejection and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J DATE: 26.08.2008 Note: L.R. copy to be marked B/o CVM