THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21777 of 2011 Dated: 04.08.2011 Between: B. Venkatesh Goud ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, And others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21777 of 2011 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s request for renewal of the Bar licence in the name and style of M/s. Vaishnavi Restaurant and Bar vide proceedings dated 2.7.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 2.7.2011 shows that the petitioner’s request for renewal was rejected on two grounds namely that the Bar and Restaurant in question is situated within 99 mts from the Mosque at H.No.16-9-38/1, Padma Nagar, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, which is a registered wakf which attracted prohibition under Rule 6(1) (ii) of A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, ‘the Rules’); and also on the ground that the Bar and Restaurant is situated in a lane which is a predominantly residential area in violation of the Rule 6 (1) (iii). The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the 3rd respondent has no power or authority to pass the impugned order, since as per Rule 5 (6) read with Rule 11 and 9-A of Rules the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise alone is the competent authority. It is to be noticed that Rule 9-A provides that the renewal can be granted either by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise concerned or any other Officer authorised by the Commissioner. The learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise has placed before this Court the circular dated 21.06.2011, which shows that the Prohibition Excise Superintendents are authorised to renew the bar licence. Hence, the petitioner’s contention that the 3rd respondent is not competent to pass the order under challenge cannot be accepted. So far as the grounds upon which the impugned orders came to be passed are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents had come to the conclusion that the Bar in question is situated within the prohibited distance without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that even the distance was measured behind the back of the petitioner. As could be seen from the impugned order itself, a complaint was received from the Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, alleging that the Bar is situated within the prohibited distance from a registered wakf. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while disputing the allegation that the Bar and Restaurant in question is situated within the prohibited distance, submitted that the distance is more than 105 mts and had an opportunity is given to the petitioner, he would have established the same. Even with regard to the allegation that the Bar is situated in a predominantly residential area, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier round of litigation though the matter was carried to the Supreme Court, the grant of licence in favour of the petitioner was upheld. Having regard to the specific pleas taken by the writ petitioner disputing both the grounds upon which the impugned order came to be passed, I am of the opinion that it is necessary to give an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation before disposing of his application for renewal of licence. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit his objections along with supporting material to rebut the allegations that the Bar and Restaurant in question is located in a predominantly residential zone. Such objections shall be filed before the respondent No.3 on or before 12.8.2011. There shall also be a direction to the respondents to get the distance between licensed premises and the registered wakf measured in terms of Explanation to Rule 6(2) of the Rules in the presence of the petitioner as well as the representative of the A.P. State Wakf Board and then pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law on the petitioner’s application for renewal of licence. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 04.08.2011 Note: Issue C.c. in two days. GBS/ISL