IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11561 of 2009 Between: Smt.M.Jayalakshmi W/o.M.Chandrasekhar Goud R/o.13-1-80, Razdharkanpet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad, Licensee of Sri Sai Shanthi Wines at Premises No.12-2-416/65/4, Gudi Malkapur, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad. 3 Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad. 4 Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise Station, Golconda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.MOHAN PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER:- In this Writ Petition, the petitioner called in question order dated 03.06.2009 of respondent No.3, whereby he cancelled the petitioner’s Form A-1 License. The petitioner was a licensee to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor (IMFL/FL). Heeranagar Welfare Association of Gudi Malkapur filed W.P.No.16889 of 2008 against the petitioner and another person questioning grant of licenses to them on the ground that the premises chosen by them was in violation of Rule 27 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right by Shop and Conditions of Licences) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the 2005 Rules’). A Division Bench of this Court, after a detailed examination of the said Writ Petition along with a batch of similar Writ Petitions, disposed of the same by judgment dated 20.02.2009, wherein it was held that the premises selected by the petitioner was in violation of Rule 27 of the 2005 Rules. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and another licensee were carrying on business in the premises in question from 01.07.2008, the Division Bench issued the following direction: “It cannot, however, be lost sight of that respondents 7 and 8 have been carrying on business in the present premises, on Licenses being granted to them, from 1.7.2008 onwards. Asking them to forthwith relocate their licenced premises, beyond a distance of 100 Mts. from the educational Institution, would result in their suffering grave hardship. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to grant respondents 7 and 8 three months time from today to relocate their licenced premises elsewhere in conformity with Rule 27 (1) of the Excise Rules, 2005. It is made clear that, in case respondents 7 and 8 fail to do so within the afore mentioned period, it is open to the respondent authorities to proceed against them in accordance with law”. After the said Writ Petition was disposed of, respondent No. 3 issued notice dated 21.03.2009 to the petitioner directing her to select alternative premises in conformity with Rule 27 of the 2005 Rules and submit an application for according permission for shifting the shop within the time stipulated by this Court and that on failure to do so, further action will be taken as per the Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner has not applied to respondent No. 3 to permit her to run the shop in a new premises chosen in accordance with Rule 27 of the 2005 Rules. Therefore, respondent No.3 issued show cause notices dated 21.03.2009 and 22.05.2008, to the petitioner calling upon her to explain why the license shall not be cancelled for non-compliance of order dated 20.02.2009 of the Division Bench of this Court. On 01.06.2009, the petitioner caused a lawyer’s notice, wherein respondent No. 3 was informed that a Special Leave Petition was filed and that the same was pending consideration and requested respondent No. 3 not to take action. By the impugned order, respondent No. 3 cancelled the petitioner’s license in view of non-compliance of the direction of the Division Bench. At the hearing Sri P.Venugopal, learned Counsel appearing for Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that subsequent to the cancellation of her license, the petitioner moved the Division Bench for its intervention, but the Bench declined to interfere with its earlier order. The learned counsel, however, stated that the petitioner is prepared to select a new premises in accordance with Rule 27 of the 2005 Rules and approach respondent No. 3 for revoking the order of cancellation of her license. In my considered view, respondent No. 3 has not committed any illegality in cancelling the license because the said action was in conformity with the direction given by the Division Bench. Therefore, I find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order of cancellation. However, if and when the petitioner makes an application before respondent No. 3 for revocation of cancellation of her license, the earlier order of cancellation, impugned in this Writ Petition, will not preclude respondent No. 3 from reconsidering his order by permitting the petitioner to run the shop in the new premises, if he is satisfied that the petitioner has selected the new premises in accordance with Rule 27 of the 2005 Rules. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.14888 and 15426 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.06.2009 KL/LUR