THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.24167 of 2009 Dated:10.11.2009 Between: Surya Teja Wines, rep. by its Licencee A.Venkatesh And others. .. Petitioners And The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Proh. & Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: Pursuant to the notification dated 06.06.2008 issued by the 4th respondent-District Collector & Auctioning Authority, Ranga Reddy District, issuing notice of auction to grant lease of Right to sell Indian made foreign liquor and foreign liquor by shop under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘Rules, 2005), for the lease period from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2010, the petitioners along with 6th respondent and some others participated in the auction conducted on 16.06.2009 at Prohibition and Excise Academy, Bandlaguda, near Aramaisamma temple, Himayathnagar Road, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, in which the petitioners were granted licence Nos.205, 217 and 212 for Mudchintalpalli village, Uddammarri village and Lalgadimalakpet village of Shamirpet Mandal respectively, by the 3rd respondent, whereas the 6th respondent, who also participated in the said auction, was issued licence No.197 for Shamirpet shop No1. It is the case of the petitioners that the four shops at Shamirpet village, which were notified in the circular dated 05.06.2008 of the 2nd respondent, became syndicate. The petitioners complain that the respondents are trying to transfer the 6th respondent shop to Keshavaram village, which is not a notified area/locality, at any time without issuing notice to them and contrary to the notification dated 06.06.2008 and Rules 4,5,13,27 and 29 of the Rules, 2005, for which the licencee of the 1st petitioner shop submitted separate representations on 07.11.2009 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents, bringing to their notice the loss that would be suffered by him, in case the 6th respondent shop is shifted, and requesting them not to transfer the said shop from Shamirpet village to Keshavaram village, but yet no orders are passed on the said representations. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court seeking appropriate directions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to Rule 29 of the Rules, 2005, the licensed premises shall not be shifted without notice. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing for official respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to amended Rule 29 of the Rules, 2005, wherein sub-Rule 3 has been inserted as per G.O.Ms.No.598, Revenue (Ex-II), dated 26.05.2006. The contention of the learned Government Pleader need not be gone into by this Court, for the reason that the petitioner has already submitted representation, dated 07.11.2009, to the 2nd respondent with regard to his complaint, and the same is pending consideration. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, to consider the purported representation dated 07.11.2009 submitted by the 1st petitioner and take appropriate action, in accordance with law, as to whether the shifting of the shop of the 6th respondent is required or not. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 10.11.2009 v v