THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15259 of 2008 ORDER: In pursuance of the auction notiﬁcation issued by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, for grant of lease of right to sell Indian made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor by Shop under Rule 5 of the A.P. Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, “the Rules”), the petitioner participated and was declared as the highest bidder in respect of wine shop at Chodavaram-VI. Similarly, the 4 th respondent herein was declared as the highest bidder in respect of wine shop at Chodavaram-V. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the 2nd respondent/Prohibition and Excise Superintendent for grant of permission to establish his shop in the premises bearing Door No.8-88, Nouda Veedhi, Nouda Veedhi, Chodavaram and having accepted the same, the 2nd respondent granted licence in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has been running the business in the said premises under the name and style of Sravani Wines from1.07.2008. However, immediately thereafter the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 14.07.2008 directed the petitioner to shift his shop to some other suitable place stating that certain objections were received from the residents of Chodavaram village with regard to establishment of IML shop in the midst of residential area. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14.07.2008, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the petitioner was already granted permission to establish his shop at the premises in question on being satisﬁed that the prohibition under rule 27 of the Rules is not attracted and other conditions envisaged under the Rules are satisﬁed, the 2nd respondent has no power or jurisdiction to direct shifting of the shop. It is also contended that the impugned order which was passed without aﬀording an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation, is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is alleged by the petitioner that the impugned order was passed at the instance of the 4th respondent out of trade rivalry since his shop is located within the distance of 20 mts from the petitioner’s shop. It is also alleged that the reasons stated in the impugned order that the residents of the village submitted a representation to the Minister for Excise objecting the location of petitioner’s shop in the midst of residential area and that they also staged dharna and therefore, it is necessary to shift the petitioner’s shop to some other locality to maintain breach of peace, public tranquility and law and order are false and not based on record. It is also the case of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the 4th respondent’s shop is also situated in the same locality within a distance of 20 mts from the shop of the petitioner, the respondents failed to initite similar action against the 4th respondent, which itself shows that the impugned action is not bona fide. The 3rd respondent/Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Anakapalle, ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that the impugned proceedings were issued only on account of objections raised by the residents of the locality and particularly the women folk of Chodavaram village who made a representation station that the location of the shop would cause breach of peace and public tranquility. It is further stated that the Station House Oﬃcer, Chodavaram, reported that the present location of the shop would cause law and order problem as the women folk are agitating against establishment of the shop and accordingly by le dated 14.07.2008 requested to shift the said shop. Basing on the same, the impugned proceedings were issued requesting the petitioner to shift his shop to some other suitable place. While claiming that the 4th respondent’s shop is situated in a diﬀerent locality in Chodavaram village, the allegation of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings have been issued at the instance of the 4th respondent is denied. It is further pleaded that the 4th respondent’s shop is situated in a commercial locality in respect of which no complaint has been received. The allegation of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings were issued on extraneous considerations and that the reasons mentioned were not based on record has also been specifically denied. The residents of the locality at whose instance the impugned proceedings were said to have been issued got themselves impleaded as respondents 5 to 42 and they ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that in response to the protest made by them with regard to the location of petitioner’s shop in the middle of the residential area, the impugned proceedings were rightly issued by the 2nd respondent. The other allegations made by the petitioner that the impugned proceedings were not bona ﬁde has been denied stating that the 4th respondent’s shop is situated in the main road where other commercial shops are located. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. There can be no dispute about the power conferred on the 2nd respondent to direct shifting of a licensed shop for justiﬁable grounds. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 14.07.2008 shows that the residents of Chodavaram village submitted a representation to the Hon’ble Minister for Excise stating that if the petitioner’s shop is opened in the midst of residential area, it would cause law and order problem apart from aﬀecting peace and tranquility. Accordingly, they requested not to allow establishment of petitioner’s shop in that locality. That apart, vide letter dated 14.07.2008, the Station House Oﬃcer, Chodavaram, also requested to shift petitioner’s shop to some other locality to maintain law and order, stating that the women folk staged a dharna against conducting business in the residential area. May be, it is a valid and justiﬁable ground to direct shifting of a licensed premises. However, before passing the impugned order there was no notice to the petitioner and no opportunity was given to him to make his representation against the proposed action. Even assuming that the residents of the locality raised an objection with regard to location of the petitioner’s shop and that the same was also substantiated by the report of the Station House Oﬃcer, Chodavaram dated 14.07.2008, the principles of natural justice require that the same should be put to the petitioner making him available a copy of the report said to have been submitted by the Station House Oﬃcer before passing any adverse order. The 2 nd respondent is bound to give such an opportunity to the petitioner and appropriate orders are required to be passed only after considering the explanation of the petitioner if any. Since, admittedly, no such procedure is followed, the impugned order, on the face of it, is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations against the location of the petitioner’s shop and the tenability of the contentions raised by the writ petitioner, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh following due process of law in the light of the observations made above. No costs. 16.09.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15259 of 2008 Between: V.Venkata Ramesh S/o.Venkata Rao D.No.17-25 Chodavaram Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P rep.by its Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Hyderabad 2 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent Anakapalle Visakhapatnam District 3 The Station House Officer Prohibition & Excise Station Chodavaram,Visakhapatnam 4 G.Atchutha Rao S/o.Venkata Ramana Chodavaram(V) & Mandal Visakhapatnam .....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 Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in RC No.92/2008/E dt.14-07-2008 as illegal arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: