IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 17449 of 2008 Between: Vasam Sarangapani S/o.Mukundam R/o.11-23/2227/4, L.B.Nagar, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Warangal. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal. 3 V.Niranjan Kumar S/o.Ramnarayana R/o.Warangal, C/o. Surya Bar & Restaurant, 11-24-111/3, Desaipet Road, Warangal. ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, declaring the renewal of licence (2 B) of M/s. Surya Bar & Restaurant, Warangal - Respondent No.3 herein for the period from 1-7-2008 to 30-6-2009 as illegal and void and against Law, consequently cancel the licence issued by the Respondent No.1 in Rc.No.765/2006/P&E/A3, dt. 30-6-2008 in favour of Respondent No.3 and pass such other orders as may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. P.BALAMUKUNDA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17449 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein were jointly granted a licence under the provisions of A.P. Excise (Grant of licence of selling by Bar and Conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, ‘the Rules’) to run a Bar and Restaurant under the name and style of M/s. Surya Bar and Restaurant at Warangal which was valid upto 30.06.2008. However, it appears that certain disputes arose between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and consequently the petitioner herein ﬁled O.S.No.814 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Court of II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal for perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd respondent herein from dealing with bar and restaurant in question. By order dated 4.7.2007 in I.A.N.3780 of 2007 the learned II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal directed to maintain status quo in respect of the Bar and Restaurant in question and the same is in force as on today. While so, on expiry of the period of said Licence, the 1st respondent by order dated 30.6.2008 granted renewal of licence in favour of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent for the year 2008-2009 i.e., w.e.f. 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2009. The said action of the 1st respondent in renewing the licence in Form-2B is under challenge in this writ petition. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that since the Licence was granted in favour of both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, it is incumbent on the part of the 1st respondent to obtain counterpart agreement in Form-4B from both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent before granting renewal. Since the petitioner has never executed such counterpart agreement, the 1st respondent ought not to have granted renewal under the impugned order dated 30.6.2008. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Warangal, the fact that though the licence was originally granted in favour of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the renewal was granted taking the signature of the 3rd respondent alone has not been disputed. It is also stated that due to the exigencies of the work by mistake the licence was renewed taking signature of the 3rd respondent alone instead of insisting signature of both the partners on the counterpart agreement. However, having realized the mistake that the counterpart agreement is not in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, the necessary action has been initiated. A separate counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the 3rd respondent stating that the 1st respondent issued show- cause notice dated 21.8.2008 calling upon the 3rd respondent to show-cause as to why Form-2B licence should not be cancelled/withdrawn. Pursuant thereto, he submitted his explanation on 25.8.2008 stating that since the petitioner is not intending to continue as partner and the partnership ceased to be in existence the licence may be transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent as per Rule 17 of the Rules and that he is ready and willing to pay the appropriate amounts as required under law. It is also relevant to note that this Court after hearing both the parties in detail by order dated 22.8.2008 suspended the impugned order dated 30.6.2008 and consequently the 3rd respondent is not carrying on business as on today. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above and particularly keeping in view that the 1st respondent has already initiated proceedings for cancellation of the licence and that the 3rd respondent has also made an application seeking transfer of licence in his favour under Rule 17 of the Rules, without going into merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to proceed with the enquiry and also to consider the representation of the 3rd respondent dated 25.8.2008 for transfer of licence under Rule 17 of the Rules and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order after hearing the 3rd respondent as well as the writ petitioner. Till such time, the renewal granted by the 1st respondent by order dated 30.6.2008 shall not be given eﬀect to. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.09.2008 gbs Note:- CC in 3 days. (B/O) gbs