IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14371 of 2008 Between: G.Anand Mohan S/o Ram Mohan H.No.18-4-143/A/45,Gayathri Nagar Colony Adilabad,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Proh.& Excise Superintndent Dhoolpet Govt.of A.P Dhoolpet,Hyderabad 2 The District Collector(Proh& Excise) Hyderabad District A.P,Hyderabad 3 The Commissioner of Proh.& Excise Govt.Of A.P Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the request of the petitioner for locating the Gazette S.No.164 Shop in Ward No.80 Sultanshahi area instead of Ward No.72 Kajipura in the light of the enquiry reports dtd 28-06-2008 of excise Station SHO Charminar and SHO Malakpet and recommendations Dtd 28/06/2008 of the 2nd respondent as illegal arbitrary unjust and violation of Art 300(A) of constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 14371 of 2008 Oral Order: The writ petition is filed aggrieved that the 3rd respondent is not considering the petitioner’s request for locating the Wine Shop for which he obtained an A-4 license in Ward No.80 instead of the notified Ward No. 72. The 2nd respondent issued a Gazette notification on 06- 06-2008 inviting tenders for conducting an auction for issuance of retail Wine Shop License in Form A-4 under the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005 for the Excise year 2008-10 commencing from 01- 07-2008 and to enure up to 30-06-2010. The auction was held on 06-06-2008. The petitioner filed his tender for shop No. 164 which is in Ward No.72, Kajipura area. As he was the highest bidder, he was granted the license for locating a shop in the locality in question i.e., Ward No.72 for a bid amount of Rs.51,51,888-00. This was intimated to the petitioner by the order of the 1st respondent dated 17-06-2008. According to the petitioner he is a neophyte in the liquor trade. However he bid for grant of a license and was granted a license. Thereafter he searched for a suitable premises to pursue his licensed business in Ward No.72. According to the petitioner, on account of the religious preferences of the habitants in the said locality i.e., Ward No. 72, he could not procure a suitable premises on lease for running the business. In the circumstances above he represented to the respondents to permit him to take on lease and establish the shop in Ward No.80 which is Sultanshahi and on the other side of the road from the Kajipura area. According to the petitioner, the concerned Inspector conducted an inquiry and corroborated the petitioner’s statement that there was no suitable premises available in Ward No.72 and there is a suitable premises in Ward No.80 for locating a shop by the petitioner. The petitioner then represented to the 3rd respondent through the 1st respondent on 28-06-2008 for considering re-location of the shop from Ward No.72 to Ward No.80. Alleging that the 3rd respondent is sitting on the representation without passing an order, the writ petition is filed. At the hearing today, the learned Government Pleader for Excise places before this Court a copy of the order of the 3rd respondent bearing reference Cr.No. 4572/2008/CPE/G2 dated 17-07-2008. The 3rd respondent having considered the cases of three representationists including the petitioner for re-location of premises from the notified Ward to another Ward has recorded that it is not permissible and that the successful tenderers must select suitable premises and establish a shop only in the area notified in the gazette. The 3rd respondent accordingly directed the 2nd respondent to inform this position to the successful tenderers and to ensure that they establish their shops in the notified areas for which license has been granted to them. As the 3rd respondent has already passed an order dated 17-07-2008 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for re- location of the premises to Ward No.80, the substantive grievance in the writ petition does not survive nor does the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as ‘infructuous’. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any consequent action or inaction consequent on the 3rd respondent’s order dated 17-07- 2008 which has been communicated to the learned counsel for the petitioner today, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedies in accordance with law. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 21-07-2008 pvks