IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13848 of 2009 Between: A. Shiva Lingam Goud, S/o. Late A. Dasaiah, R/o. H.No. 13-5-830, Puranapul, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector and Magistrate, Hyderabad District, Govt. of A.P. at Hyderabad. 3 The Proh. & Excise Superintendent Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, Govt. of AP 4 The Proh. & Excise Superintendent Hyderabad, Govt. of AP 5 M/s. Rajdhani Wines, Licence No. 17/2008-2010 H.No. 4-1-356, Hanumantekdi, Hyderabad, Rep by its Licencee .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNURI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondent No.5: --- The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4, in recommending and proposing the shifting of respondent No.5-Wine Shop from Ward No.16, Sultan Bazaar to Ward Nos.44 and 49, Jiyaguda, Puranapul, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner is an A-4 licensee, carrying on business in Ward No.44, Jiyaguda, Puranapool, Hyderabad. Respondent No.5 was granted a similar license in respect of Ward No.16, Sultan Bazaar. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.5 made an application to respondent No.1 through respondent No.4 to permit it to shift the shop from Ward No.16, Sultan Bazaar to Ward Nos.44 or 49, Jiyaguda, Puranapul, Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, such a petition cannot be entertained and no permission can be granted for such shifting. Therefore, he filed objections before the respondents. The petitioner’s ap prehension is that, without properly considering those objections, respondent No.1 may permit shifting of the shop by respondent No.5. Heard Sri T.Amarnath Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Under Rule 29 (2) of the A.P.Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licences) Rules, 2005 (for short “the Rules”), no change or alteration of licenced premises shall be made nor the licenced premises shall be shifted elsewhere. However, the proviso to the said Rule vests discretion in the Commissioner to permit such shifting within the same Mandal, Municipality or Municipal Corporation for valid reasons without affecting the total number of notified shops therein. While respondent No.1 has got power to permit shifting, such a power can be exercised only for valid reasons. It is, therefore, incumbent upon respondent No.1 to consider the objections filed by the petitioner, who apprehends that his business is likely to be adversely affected if such shifting is permitted. Viability of objector’s business is certainly a relevant aspect, which should go into decision making of respondent No.1 in considering applications for permission for shifting. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and examine the application of respondent No.5 with reference to existence of valid reasons for such shifting and the viability aspect before taking a decision thereon. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.18095 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 13th July, 2009 lur