HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MAIN CASE No: WP.No.30124 of 2010 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 02) 21-11- 2011 CVNR, J WVMP.No.2626 of 2011 This is an application to vacate interim order, dated 01-12-2010, in WPMP.No.38369 of 2010 in W.P.No.30124 of 2010. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. The petitioner is an A4 licensee, who is permitted to sell liquor in retail. The premises chosen by the petitioner was approved by the respondents. However, even before the petitioner has chosen the premises, a notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 29- 10-2008, for road widening, in which the premises selected by the petitioner was notified for acquisition. When the petitioner approached the respondents for permission to shift to another premises, the permission was accorded subject to the petitioner paying one percent of the lease amount or Rs.25,000/-, whichever is higher. This condition, subject to which the petitioner was granted permission, is questioned in the Writ Petition. According to the petitioner, since the circumstances forced it to shift the premises, there is no justification for the respondents to levy the shifting fees. Rule 29 (3) of the A.P.Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licenses) Rules, 2005, which is relevant for the present purpose, reads as under: “Shifting of the licensed premises may be permitted for valid reasons and subject to conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise within the same area/locality where it was originally established subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as fee.” CVNR, J (contd ) Note: Transferred to i.o.folder. (B/o) lur (contd…) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that even before the petitioner selected the premises, t h e notification under the Act was issued whereunder the premises in question was notified for acquisition. Therefore, the petitioner has taken the risk of selecting such a premises. As the Rules envisage payment of fees as a condition for shifting, I do not find the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the petitioner for continuing the interim order granted earlier. Interim Order, 01-12-2010, in WPMP.No.38369 of 2010 is, accordingly, vacated. Payment of fees by the petitioner shall, however, be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. WVMP No.2626 of 2011 and WPMP.No.38369 of 2010 are disposed of accordingly. _________ 21-11-2011 lur SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE