* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU + WRIT APPEAL Nos.656 & 657 of 2010 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.21399 and 21492 of 2010 %07-09-2010 W.A.No.656 of 2010 # M/s.Bramarambha Wines ….petitioner Vs. $ A.Rajesh and others …. Respondents !Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.Bharadwaj Associates Counsel for the Respondent No.1: A.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P. for Prohibition & Excise W.A.No.657 of 2010 # M/s.Bramarambha Wines ….petitioner Vs. $ K.Devaraj Goud and others …. Respondents !Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.Bharadwaj Associates Counsel for the Respondent No.1: A.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P. for Prohibition & Excise <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (1978)1 SCC 405 2. (1990)4 SCC 594 3. AIR 1967 SC 1606 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL Nos.656 & 657 of 2010 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.21399 and 21492 of 2010 Date: 07.09.2010 W.A.No.656 of 2010 Between: M/s.Bramarambha Wines …..Petitioner And: A.Rajesh and others …..Respondents. W.A.No.657 of 2010 Between: M/s.Bramarambha Wines …..Petitioner And: K.Devaraj Goud and others …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL Nos.656 & 657 of 2010 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.21399 and 21492 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT:(PER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) These appeals are directed against the orders dated 31.08.2010 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P.Nos.27223 of 2010 and 27326 of 2010 in W.P.Nos.21399 of 2010 and 21492 of 2010, respectively. The order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 24.08.2010 permitting shifting of the appellant’s retail wine shop (under A4 licence) from the licenced premises in Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad, Ward No.88 to the premises bearing Door No.3-4-242 to 244 in Ward No.81, Barkatpura was challenged in the writ petition and was suspended by the interim orders under appeal. The learned senior counsel Sri V. Venkataramana appearing for the appellant, who is the 5th respondent in the two writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the official respondents in the appeals and in the writ petitions and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents herein urge that the substantive writ petitions may be disposed of by this bench as the contentions urged herein would suffice for adjudication of the writ petitions as well. In view of the conjoint submissions, the writ petition Nos.21399 and 21492 of 2010 are taken up and disposed of by this order. The parties are referred as arrayed in the writ petitions. M/s.Bramarambha Wines, the non official respondent in the writ petitions was the successful auction purchaser of A4 shop and was licenced to be located in Ward No.88 at Bagh Lingampally, for the excise year 2010-12. The licenced premises is in the Dayananda Nagar, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. The licence was granted by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Secunderabad on 22.07.2010 for the period 22.07.2010 to 30.06.2012. This licensee applied on 12.08.2010 for shifting of the licensed premises to premises bearing Door No.3-4-242 to 244 in Ward No.81, Barkatpura. The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Secunderabad and the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad favourably recommended to the Commissioner the application for shifting of the licensed premises, on the ground that at the present location, local people and leaders belonging to various political parties are not allowing the licensee to open the shop, had staged dharnas and the local women are also strenuously opposed for the establishment of the shop as their families would become addict to consumption of liquor. The Commissioner thereupon passed the order dated 24.08.2010 exercising power under Rule 29(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, ‘2005 Rules’) granting permission for shifting of the premises from Vidyanagar to Barkatpura as sought by the applicant, on the basis of the reports of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent. This is the order impugned in the writ petitions. The writ petitioners are licensees of other A4 shops in the vicinity, in Barkatpura area. They challenged the order of the Commissioner dated 24.08.2010 contending inter alia that the permission to shift the premises adversely impacts their own business as they had obtained A4 licences after paying huge amounts and that the objections lodged by them to the Commissioner against the potential grant of permission to shift the location of Bramarambha Wines have not been considered. Rule 29(3) of the 2005 Rules enables the Commissioner to consider and permit for valid reasons, the shifting of licensed premises even outside the notified area, subject to fulfilment of certain other conditions. On text and authority therefore, the power of the Commissioner to permit shifting of the licensed premises must be for valid reasons which will have to be reflected in the order to be passed under Rule 29(3) of the 2005 Rules. The impugned order of the Commissioner dated 24.08.2010 reads as under: “In the circumstances reported by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Secunderabad in the references 1st and 2nd cited, and on the request of the licensee, permission is hereby accorded for shifting of the premises of M/s.Bramarambha Wines, Gazette Sl.No.101, from D.No.1-9-113/30/1/C/1, Dayanand Nagar, Vidyanagar of Bagh Lingampally, Ward No.88, Hyderabad to the newly selected premises in D.No.3-4-242 to 244 of Barkatpura, Ward No.81, Hyderabad, subject to payment of requisite shifting fee as per Rules. The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Secunderabad, is requested to take further necessary action as per rules.” It is evident from the text and context of the impugned order that the Commissioner has recorded no reasons whatsoever in justification of the exercise of his discretion to accord permission to shift the licensed premises of the non-official respondent from Bagh Lingampally to Barkatpura area. In view of the settled principles of administrative law and the decisions of Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill V. The Chief Election Commissioner[1] and the Constitution Bench decision in S.N.Mukherjee V. Union of India[2], a public authority exercising a discretionary power, in particular where a statute enjoins that the exercise of power to be for valid reasons, must record reasons for the exercise of the power. As the writ petitioners had objected to any permission being given for shifting of the shop, as this would adversely affect their economic situation, the Commissioner was enjoined to record reasons so as to enable any aggrieved person to test the validity of the exercise of such a discretionary power by the Commissioner, in an appropriate proceeding including in judicial review-vide the decision of the Constitution bench in Bhagat Raja V. Union of India[3]. The order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 24.08.2010, for granting permission for shifting of the non-official respondent’s shop from Bagh Lingampally to Barkatpura contains no reasons let alone valid reasons justifying the exercise of discretion. The order invites invalidation for being laconic and non- speaking and is accordingly quashed. The writ petitions (W.P.Nos.21399 of 2010 W.P.No.21492 of 2010) are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case however, we direct the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise/the 3rd respondent herein to de novo consider the application of the non-official respondent (M/s.Bramarambha Wines) for shifting of his premises from Vidyanagar, Bagh Lingampally to Barkatpura expeditiously and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly recording reasons therefore including on the objections of the writ petitioners. As the writ petitions are allowed by the orders herein, the writ appeals directed against interim orders in the writ petitions, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed as infructuous. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 07, 2010 Note: L.R.Copy marked (b/o)KSH [1] (1978)1 SCC 405 [2] (1990)4 SCC 594 [3] AIR 1967 SC 1606