IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 25077 of 2008 Between: P.Nagasrinu S/o. P.Lingam 8/A/1 Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam ... PETITIONER AND 1) M/s Krishna Wines D.No.35-1-10/5 Ward No.43 Rep.by its Bora Nookaraju, S/o Appala Naidu Ram Murthy Pantulupeta,Visakhapatnam, A.P 2) Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visaakhapatnam Rep.by its Commissioner 3) Superintendent Proh & Exercise Visakhapatnam 4) Commissioner Proh & Exercise A.P Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ call for the records pursuant to proceedings dt 8-7- 08 in Rc No.394/2008 A-2 issued by the respondent No 3&4 granting the license to the 1st respondent and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.BASWA RAJ Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.G. VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR PROH. & EXCISE The Court made the following: Oral Order: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. This is a public interest litigation wherein it has been alleged that respondent No.1 is having a liquor shop on land belonging to respondent No.2 Corporation though respondent No.2 had never permitted respondent No.1 to sell liquor on its land. 2. It is an admitted fact that for having a licence to sell liquor, either a person should do business in his own premises or he should procure permission of his landlord if he wants to do business in somebody else’s premises. 3. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that respondent No.1 is selling liquor in a premises belonging to Saleema, who had permitted respondent No.1 to carry on liquor business and, therefore, respondent No.1 had obtained licence from the concerned authority for selling liquor. According to him, respondent No.1 is doing his business in a lawful manner at the premises in question. 4. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 Corporation has submitted that the premises where liquor is being sold by respondent No.1 belongs to respondent No.2 and not to Saleema as stated by respondent No.1. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 has submitted that respondent No.1 had given incorrect information to the effect that the premises where he wanted to do his business of selling liquor belongs to Saleema. Now, the government authorities have come to know that the premises belongs to respondent No.2 Corporation and, therefore, now it has come to knowledge of the respondent authorities that licence was wrongfully issued to respondent No.1. In that event, respondent No.1 will have to shift the place of his business. 6. In view of the above fact, we are sure that respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall take necessary action to see that respondent No.1 is directed to shift its place of business as the premises where he is doing his business does not belong to Saleema, but belongs to respondent No.2 Corporation and respondent No.2 has never given permission to respondent No.1 to sell liquor at the place in question. 7. In the circumstances, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to take necessary legal action in accordance with law against respondent No.1 within two weeks from today. 8. In view of the above directions, the grievance ventilated in the petition would not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ March 30, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}