IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 249 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/02/2008 in WP NO : 560 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Toddy Cooperative Society, Nudurupadu village, Pirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its President ( Secretary ), .Ramakrishna S/o.Late Vengaiah, Occ: Toddy Tapper and President, Aged about 38 years, Nudurupadu Village, Pirangipuram Mandal, Guntur Dist. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh at Excise Bhavan, J.N.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Narasaraopet of Guntur District at Narasaraopet. 3 The Inspector of Prohibition & Excise, Sattenapalli of Guntur District at Sattenapalli. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT Per Anil R. Dave, CJ The appellant – original petitioner has challenged order passed in W.P.M.P.No.631 of 2008 in W.P.No.560 of 2008 dated 18.2.2008 whereby the learned Single Judge declined to grant the interim relief sought by the appellant. The appellant-petitioner is a Cooperative Society selling toddy. It was given a license to sell toddy bearing No.68/2002, which was valid up to 30th September, 2007. The said license had been issued under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Tapping of trees and toddy shops, special conditions of Licenses) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the old rules’). The said rules are no more in force at present because of enactment of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of license to sell toddy, conditions of license and tapping of excise trees) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the new rules’). Case of the appellant is that the license, which had been issued to the appellant-society under the old rules of 1969, should be renewed as a matter of course. Renewal of the license was denied on the ground that the rules under which the license had been issued are no more in force as the new rules have been framed. Interim prayer with regard to renewal of the license was not granted by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also considered the facts of the case. Sri Sairam Goud, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has mainly submitted that by virtue of the provisions of Rule 6 of the new rules, the license of the appellant must be renewed notwithstanding the fact that the license was granted under the old rules. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Advocate for the reason that Rule 6 of the new rules pertain to renewal of the licenses, which have been issued under the new rules. In the instant case, the license had been issued under the old rules and as the old rules are not in force at all, the license issued to the appellant under the old rules cannot be automatically renewed under the new rules, possibly because the provisions of both the rules, namely, ‘ the old rules’ and ‘ the new rules’ are different and there can be a case where a person who might be entitled to a license under the old rules may not be eligible to have license under the new rules. For the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error by not granting interim relief prayed for in the petition. Appeal is thus liable to be dismissed. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant then prays that a date may be fixed for early hearing of the writ petition. Looking to the facts of the case, we are sure that the learned Single Judge will give priority to final hearing of the writ petition pending before him if the learned Advocate for the appellant- petitioner makes a request for expeditious hearing of the petition. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 5th March, 2008 T.CH. SURYA RAO, J vtv