IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.7642 of 2009 Between: D. Sivakesava Reddy S/o. D. Chenna Krishna Reddy Licensee of M/s,. Kousalya Restaurant & Bar Door No. 12/629, SLV Market Area , Dharmavaram Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Penukonda, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 2nd Respondent passed in Rc NO. 79/2009/C1 dt. 26-3-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.7642 of 2009 ORDER:- The petitioner asserts that he has been running a bar and restaurant at the premises bearing D.No.12/629, S.L.V. Market Area, Dharmavaram Municipality, having obtained licence under Rule-11 of A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005 (for short “the Rules”) on 07.07.2006, and he has been running the same without contravening any of the conditions of the licence, which is being renewed from time to time, and he has not made any additional enclosures to the premises. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 26.03.2009 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence granted in his favour should not be cancelled for violation of the Rules and licence conditions and to submit explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner further asserts that pursuant to a similar show- cause notice issued to another licensee, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 30.03.2009 demanding the said licensee to pay additional enclosure fee of Rs.1.4 lakhs for 2006-07 and Rs.1.61 lakhs for 2007-08, and in the annexure to that proceedings, the name of the petitioner’s bar was also shown. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was not served with any separate proceedings demanding him to pay the additional enclosure fee, the petitioner is also made liable to pay the demanded amounts under the proceedings dated 30.03.2009 issued in favour of the similarly situated licensee, as the name of his bar was also shown in the annexure to the said proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the said proceedings dated 30.03.2009 were already questioned by the said similarly situated licensee by way of filing a writ petition, being W.P.No.7335 of 2009, and the same was disposed of by this Court on 08.04.2009 with certain directions, and this writ petition may also be disposed of with the same directions. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has also agreed for the same. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The petitioner is directed to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority and seek appropriate relief within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to implement the proceedings dated 30.03.2009.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA 17th April, 2009 IBL