THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27340 of 2009 ORDER: There is no representation for the petitioners. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in issuing licence in Form-2B to respondent No.6 to run a Bar and Restaurant in the premises bearing No.9-10-64, 11th Division, Railpet, Guntur, as illegal and in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’). The grant of licence for running a bar and restaurant and the conditions for such grant are governed by the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.997, Revenue (Ex.II), dated 24.05.2005. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they are residing at Railpet, 11th division of Guntur District and the premises in question is in predominantly residential area and within 100 meters of recognised school, by name, Kanna English Medium School, as such, issuing of such licence in favour of respondent No.6 is illegal. It is their case that as much as it is a residential area, the licence issued to respondent No.6 for running a bar and restaurant in that locality will affect their right to live peacefully. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5, a counter-affidavit is filed and respondent No.6 filed a separate counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5, while generally denying various allegations levelled against them by the petitioners, it is stated that while granting licence in favour of respondent No.6, the objections of the petitioners were considered and that the premises in question is situated in a heavy commercial and floating area and road passes through the proposed premises is a busy road with four cross road junction, which passes to Naaz Centre, Bus Stand, Kothapet and Arundalpet area. It is further stated that Kanna English Medium School is more than 100 meters away from the premises in question. It is also stated that as much as it is found that the application submitted by respondent No.6 is in accordance with the Rules, he was issued Form-2B licence on 01.02.2010. The counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.6 is in similar lines. Respondent No.6 filed photographs and land use certificate issued by Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri (VGTM) Urban Development Authority, which is constituted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. Rule 6 of the Rules deals with the restrictions for grant of Form- 2B licence for running a bar and restaurant. Under Rule 6(1)(ii) of the Rules, a licence shall not be granted if the proposed premises is located within 100 meters from educational institution recognised by the Government. Further, under Rule 6(1)(iii) of the Rules, such licence shall not be granted if the proposed premises is located within a distance of 500 meters of predominantly residential area, but licence may however be granted if the proposed premises is located on a main road used for shopping purposes. From the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that Kanna English Medium School is more than 100 meters away from the premises in question. In view of the same, restriction under Section 6(1)(ii) will not apply. The allegation of the petitioners that the premises in question is in a predominantly residential area cannot be accepted for the reason that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5, it is clearly mentioned that it is a commercial area and the premises in question is on the main road. It is also evident from the land use certificate bearing D.Dis.No.E2-39/10, dated 28.01.2010 issued by the Junior Planning Officer, VGTM Urban Development Authority, Guntur, that the premises in question is recognised as local commercial use under the Zonal Development Plan Scheme. Even a perusal of the photographs also indicates that the premises in question is on the main road, but not in a residential area as alleged by the petitioners. It is to be noticed that even before grant of licence in Form-2B to respondent No.6, this writ petition is filed and pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, respondent Nos.1 to 5 have considered the objections of the petitioners and granted licence in favour of respondent No.6 vide proceedings, dated 01.02.2010. For the reasons referred to above, I find there is no illegality in granting licence in Form-2B in favour of respondent No.6 and the same is not in violation of Rule 6 of the Rules. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th JULY, 2010. kvni