HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.13192 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioner in the writ petition seeks to quash the proceedings of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, rejecting the petitioner’s application for establishing a Restaurant and Bar at Udayagiri Heritage Tourism Center, SPSR Nellore. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the respondents. 3. The impugned proceedings of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 14-10-2010 reveal that the Commissioner had called for report from the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nellore and as per the said report, in Udayagiri Gram Panchayat, four (4) A4 shops are already functioning and that there is no requirement of a Bar and Restaurant at Udayagiri for the year 2010-2011. In view of the said report, the Commissioner rejected the petitioner’s application holding that there is no need for establishment of a Restaurant and Bar at Udayagiri Town. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s application is wholly unjustified by virtue of earlier recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner. 5. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected as the Commissioner who passed the impugned order has acted in accordance with the requirement of statute as well as subjective satisfaction on the basis of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and rendered his decision. Since the petitioner has no fundamental right to carry on the trade by establishing Restaurant and Bar, and when the learned Commissioner’s decision is based on subjective satisfaction that there is no such requirement to establish Restaurant and Bar at Udagiri, that satisfaction cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that there are some subsequent events which need to be brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. If that be so, it is open for the petitioner to make a fresh application to the Commissioner seeking appropriate permission, if any supervening subsequent events exist as sought for by the petitioner. 7. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ 23-08-2011 kvr