IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2670 of 2009 Between: Srinivasa Wines, Rep by its License Holder, Sri Singiddi Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Sri Narsa Reddy, R/o. Maruthinagar, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT 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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Manamus" declaring the Notice No.F1/BDN/1037/2008 DATED 27-12-2008 action of the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SUJAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: MR.P.RADHAKRISHNA The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2670 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner-wine shop states that pursuant to an auction, it was issued License No.B1/24/BDN/2008-10 dated 28.06.2008 in Form No. A4, under Rule 17 of A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005 and the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, for the period from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2010, by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Nizamabad, for which it paid an amount of Rs.69,99,999/- towards the lease amount. While so, the petitioner states that the respondent issued the impugned order dated 27.12.2008, under Section 359 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’), stating that the petitioner has been using the place as wine shop without license, as required under Section 263, 264, 275 and 288 of the Act, and called upon the petitioner to pay license fee of Rs.67,000/- i.e., 2% of the rental value within a period of three days. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice dated 06.10.2008, referred to in the impugned order, was not served on the petitioner. He submitted that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the petitioner, and the provisions of Section 263 of the Act are applicable only in respect of purposes specified in Schedule IV of the said Act, and insofar as the alleged contraventions pointed out, it is submitted by the counsel that the petitioner is in no way answerable to the respondent, and the liability, if any, to pay the licence fee/renewal fee, is only to the Excise Department, which fee the petitioner has already paid. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the notice referred to in the impugned order, was not served on the petitioner, and submitted that the writ petition be disposed of treating the impugned order as show cause notice to the petitioner, calling for explanation of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner expressed no objection to this stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. In view of the agreed stand taken by both the counsel, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: “The respondent shall treat the impugned order as show cause notice. The petitioner is given two weeks time to submit his explanation to the impugned order, which is treated as show cause notice. Upon the petitioner submitting his explanation, the respondent shall consider the same, including the aspect of applicability of the Act, and pass appropriate speaking orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks thereafter.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 12.02.2009 v v