THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26307 of 2007 Date: 02.04.2008 Between: Bijjem Purushotham Reddy … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad. And others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.Niranjan Redy for Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: G.P. for Proh. & Excise Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri P.Krishna Reddy HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26307 of 2007 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare order dated 12.10.2007 passed by respondent No.1 whereby he directed the petitioner to shift his shop from Jonnawada to Munulapudi village. The petitioner was granted A-4 Licence for establishment of a shop in Munulapudi village on 1.6.2006. He made an application to shift his shop to Kagulapadu village and respondent No.1 by his order dated 22.8.2006 rejected the same. The petitioner then made another representation to respondent No.1 to shift his shop to Utadoruvu village. After considering the said application, respondent No.1 by his order dated 17.10.2006 granted the permission for shifting. Not stopping at that, the petitioner made another application to shift his shop from Utadoruvu to Mixture Colony and the said request was rejected. The petitioner again came up with another application to shift his shop from Utadoruvu to Jonnawada village. By proceedings dated 19.5.2007 respondent No.1 accepted the said request and permitted the petitioner to establish his shop at Jonnawada village. The petitioner again approached respondent No.1 for shifting his shop from Jonnawada to Kalayakogallu village. Respondent No.1 by his order dated 12.10.2007 while rejecting the said request, directed respondent No.3 to take necessary action to see that the petitioner shifts his shop from Jonnawada to Munulapudi village, the original place of establishment of his shop. The petitioner’s representation dated 13.11.2007 not to shift his shop to Munulapudi village was rejected by respondent No.1 by his order dated 29.11.2007. Questioning these proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court by order dated 10.12.2007 suspended the impugned proceedings enabling the petitioner to continue at Jonnawada village. Respondent No.4, Chairman of Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshi Tayee Temple, Jonnawada village got himself impleaded in this writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the counter affidavit. I have heard the arguments of Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. A perusal of the order dated 12.10.2007, which is not filed by the petitioner, but produced by the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise at the hearing, reads as under: “ In the circumstances reported by the D.C.Nellore in the ref. cited, permission to shift A-4 Shop M/s.Sri Sakthi Sindura Wines from Jonnawada to Kalayakagollu is hereby rejected. The P & E.S, Nellore is requested to take necessary action to direct the licensee to shift the A-4 Shop M/s.Sri Sai Sakthi Sindura Wines, Jonnawada to Munulapudi (v) of the same Mandal which is the notified place in the G.Sl.No.317.” Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above re-produced order passed by respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Rule-29 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short “the Rules, 2005”). He submitted that the permission to shift from Utadoruvu to Jonnawada having already been given on 19.5.2007, respondent No.1 is not justified in directing the petitioner to go back to the original place, namely, Munulapudi. He submitted that if respondent No.1 was not satisfied that valid reasons exist for shifting of petitioner’s shop from Jonnawada to Kalayakogallu, it would have been open to him to simply reject the request, but there is no warrant for him to direct the petitioner to go back to Munulapudi. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submitted that the District Collector, Nellore addressed a letter dated 29.5.2007 to respondent No.3 alongwith several objections filed by the temple authorities at Jonnawada and some other residents of the said place, that respondent No.3 directed an enquiry to be held and accordingly, an enquiry was held by his subordinates and a report was submitted on 15.6.2007. In the meantime, the petitioner filed his application on 30.7.2007 for shifting of his shop from Jonnawada to Kalayakogallu village. He submitted that having considered the report forwarded by respondent No.3 through Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Nellore, respondent No.1 rejected the application of the petitioner for shifting from Jonnawada to Kalayakogallu and directed the petitioner to go back to his original place, namely, Munulapudi. Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent No.4 submitted that the very fact that the petitioner himself opted to move out of Jonnawada village itself would disentitle him to contend that he should be allowed to carry on his business at that place. He further stated that since the temple at Jonnawada is very famous and sanctimonious, there is no justification for respondent No.1 to have permitted the petitioner to shift his place of business from Utadoruvu to Jonnawada. He further submitted that respondent No.4 is interested in only to see that the petitioner will not carry on business at Jonnawada. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. Rule 29 of the Rules, 2005 reads as under: “29.Sale permitted at the licensed premises only: 1) The lease holder shall sell the liquor only at the premises specified in the licence. 2) No change or alteration of the licensed premises shall be made nor the licensed premises shifted elsewhere. 3) 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 Prohibition and Excise, subject to payment of 1% of the lease amount or Rs.25,000/-, whichever is higher. Provided that the Commissioner may consider and permit for valid reasons shifting of the licensed premises, not withstanding the notified area of the licensed premises, within the same Mandal or municipality or Municipal Corporation without affecting the total number of Notified shops in the said Mandal or municipality or Municipal Corporation subject to conditions as specified by the Commissioner and subject to payment of 1% of lease amount or Rs.25,000/- whichever is higher.” A Division Bench of this Court, of which I am a party in D.R.Sridhar Naidu vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad and Others[1] while dealing with the expression “valid reason” occurring in Rule 29(3), held as under: “A reading of the above reproduced rule shows that shifting of the licensed premises can be permitted for valid reason within the notified area and subject to conditions to be specified by the Commissioner. The expression ‘valid reason’ has not been defined in Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 or the Rules, but the setup in which the said expression has been used in sub-rule (3) of Rule 29 makes it clear that the proposed shifting of the licensed premises must be for good and sufficient reasons having bearing on public interest. In a given case, the licensee may not be able to commence and carry on the business on account of the opposition by the people of the area or on account of non-availability of the premises or similar reasons. A false or fabricated or non-existing reason does not fall within the ambit of the expression ‘valid reason’.” Admittedly, from the narration of the above-mentioned facts, it is evident that the petitioner had been making frequent applications to shift from one place to the other and on two occasions his request was accepted by permitting to shift to Utadoruvu initially from Munulapudi village and later to Jonnawada. I see force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if respondent No.1 was not satisfied about the petitioner’s application to shift from Jonnawada to Kalayakogallu, he was not justified in directing the petitioner to go back to the original place namely, Munulapudi. Though in the counter affidavit several reasons are given, order dated 12.10.2007 does not contain any reason whatsoever either to reject the petitioner’s application to shift from Jonnawada to Kalayakogallu or to direct the petitioner to go back to the original place, namely, Munulapudi. The earlier order dated 17.10.2006 by which the petitioner was permitted to shift from Munulapudi to Utadoruvu has not been cancelled. Even if there were compelling reasons for respondent No.1 to direct the shifting of the shop from Jonnawada, he could only do so by cancelling the earlier order dated 19.5.2007 by which the petitioner was permitted to shift from Utadoruvu to Jonnawada. The said earlier proceedings were not cancelled. Further, as already stated, respondent No.1 has not given any reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner to shift from Jonnawada to Kalayakogallu. On a consideration of the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner does not want to carry on its business at Jonnawada and respondent No.4 and the other residents of Jonnawada village seriously object to the petitioner’s continuing at that place. Therefore, there is no justification to allow the petitioner to continue at Jonnawada. This being so, the only other question to be considered is whether the petitioner should be directed to shift his business to Munulapudi or allow him to go to Kalayakogallu. As noticed hereinabove, respondent No.1 while rejecting the petitioner’s application to permit him to shift to Kalayakogallu, he has not given any reasons. Even in the counter affidavit no reasons are forthcoming to reject the said application. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s continuance at Jonnawda is highly objectionable and at his own request he was already permitted to shift from Munulapudi village, I do not see any justification to direct the petitioner to shift back to Munulapudi village once again. Instead, I feel ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to shift to Kalayakogallu, subject to the condition that his shifting would not violate the Rules. In the event, respondent No.1 finds that the petitioner would be violating any of the Rules by shifting to Kalayakogallu, then the petitioner shall be permitted to shift his shop to Utadoruvu, the place from which his shop was shifted to Jonnawada earlier. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall pay the required fee for shifting to Kalayakogallu or Utadoruvu as the case may be. Respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then the petitioner’s shop shall be permitted to continue at Jonnawada. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34310 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:02.04.2008 mdaa [1] 2007 (3) ALD 128 (DB)