IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19494 of 2008 Between: 1 Talapaneni Sarojanamma W/o. Sriram Naidu R/o. H.No.27/1574, Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 Jayasri W/o. K.Dasan R/o.H.No.26-2-877, Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 Parvathamma W/o.Late Seethaiah R/o.H.No.26-2-705 Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 Padmamma W/o.Late Venkateswarlu R/o. Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 5 B. Seshamma W/o.Venkateswarlu R/o.H.No.26/2/741, Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 6 G.Kalyani W/o.Venkata Ratnam R/o. Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 7 Sompali Raghuramaiah S/o.Kotaiah R/o.D.No.26 II 802, Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 8 M.Seenaiah S/o.M.Chinnaiah R/o. Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 9 G.V.Ratnam S/o.Kamakshaiah R/o. Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 10 R.Appa Rao S/o.Davwedi R/o.Venkatareddy Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 M/s. Venkatesh Wine Spot, rep. by its Proprietor Kukati Harigopal Reddy, Divisions No.26, Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, Nellore 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 grant of licence by the respondents 1 and 2 for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor by shop on the premises bearing S.No.37 Plot No.47 Ward No. 26-2, Jyothi Nagar, Nellore Municipal Corporation in favour of 3rd respondent as illegtal arbitrary and contrary to the Rules and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to shift shop from the premises bearing S.No.37 Plot No.47 Ward No. 26-2, Jyothi Nagar, Nellore Municipal Corporation. Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. P. Ganga Rami Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.P., Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.2: G.P., Prohibition & Excise Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy The Court made the following: Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this public interest litigation, it has been submitted that licence given to Respondent No.3 for sale of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor at the premises bearing S.No.37, Plot No.47, Ward No.26-2, Jyothi Nagar, Nellore, is against the provisions of law for the reason that it is at a distance of less than 100 metres from an educational institution. It has been, therefore, submitted that the licence for sale of liquor granted in favour of Respondent No.3 be canceled. In pursuance of notice issued by this court, Respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavits. We have heard the learned Advocates and have considered the contents of the counter affidavits filed by the concerned respondents. Upon hearing the learned Advocates, we find that the averments and allegations made in the petition are not correct. It is true that there is a private school, which is within 100 metres from the place where Indian-Made Foreign Liquor as well as Foreign Liquor is permitted to be sold. But, it has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 that the principle with regard to maintenance of a particular distance is applicable only when the educational institution is recognized by the State Government or Central Government. In the instant case, the school, which is within 100 metres from the premises in question, is a private school not recognized by the State or Central Government, and, therefore, the restriction with regard to maintenance of a particular distance would not apply to the said school. The afore- stated fact could not even be disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. It is also pertinent to note that this public interest litigation has not been filed in good faith for the reason that, the brother of Petitioner No.1 was granted licence to do the business of liquor from the same premises in the previous years. It appears that simply because the brother of Petitioner No.1 was not given licence, this petition was filed with an oblique motive so as to see that the licence of Respondent No.3, who has been given the licence because of his highest bid, is cancelled. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any substance in the petition, and, therefore, the petition is rejected. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. December 11, 2008 MRR