The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.12562 of 2010 Dated 4th June, 2010 Between: P.Nagasreenu …Petitioner And 1.The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.G.Tuhin Kumar Counsel for the respondents: GP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Tender Notification No.59, dated 27-05-2010, to the extent that it has proposed an auction to be conducted to grant lease of right to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor/Foreign Liquor by shop in Ward No.43, Kancharlapalem, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, as illegal and contrary to order, dated 13-03- 2009, in W.P.No.25077 of 2008. I have heard Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise representing the respondents. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner felt aggrieved by the proposed location of a shop for sale of liquor, as notified in the impugned Notification, in Ward No.43 of the above-mentioned area. The main stand of the petitioner’s plea is that location of a liquor shop in the said Ward is contrary to the Division Bench order, dated 13-03-2009, in W.P.No.25077 of 2008. A perusal of the said order shows that the petitioner has filed the said Writ Petition in the name of public interest against the licencee, who located the liquor shop in Door No.35-1-10/5 of Ward No.43. This Court accepted the plea of the petitioner that the said premises, which belong to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, should not have been permitted to be used for the purpose of running a liquor shop by the licencee. Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the licencee to shift its place of business from the said premises to a different place. This order was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the licencee. On a careful consideration of the scope of the earlier Writ Petition, I am of the view that the plea of the petitioner, that the proposed location of liquor shop in Ward No.43 is contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.25077 of 2008, is wholly misconceived. The objection raised in the said Writ Petition, and accepted by this Court as noted earlier, was regarding running of liquor shop in a particular premises in Ward No.43 and at the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner conceded that the question whether a liquor shop can be located in Ward No.43 or not was never the issue either raised in the said Writ Petition or decided therein. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however sought to place reliance upon a photocopy of a report stated to have been submitted by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Visakhapatnam, wherein he opined that as local residents have submitted their objections for establishment of A4 shop in Ward No.43, the premises may be shifted to Ward No.36. The learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out as to the violation of any legal provision in the event of location of the liquor shop in Ward No.43. Even the so- called report of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector failed to indicate any such violation. In my view, the opinion of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector does not bind his superiors as the petitioner failed to establish any statutory violation in the event of location of liquor shop at Ward No.43. I do not therefore find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.15817 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th June, 2010 lur