Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Batchu Subrahmanyam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 November, 2024
APHC010513592024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 26343/2024
Between:
1. BATCHU SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O.B.NAGESWARA RAO AGED 34
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O.DOOR NO.1-14, PATHA TUNGA
PADU, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH
2. VONKA MALIKARJUNA SWAMY, S/O.V.SURYANARAYANA AGED
45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O.D.NO.4-12, SRIRAMPURAM ROAD
DIWANCHERUVU, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
3. MACHI SAI KRISHNA, S/O.M.RAJA RAJU AGED 41 YEARS, OCC
BUSINESS R/O.D.NO. 10-30, KATONPETA, DOWLAISWARAM
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
4. B.SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.B.SURYA BABU AGED 52 YEARS, OCC
BUSINESS R/O.D.NO.51 -5-3/1, RAJENDRANAGAR,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA
PRADESH
5. SMT.ANGARA ARUNA KUMARI, W/O.UMA MAHESHWARA RAO
AGED 57 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O.D.NO.2-42-60/1, OLD
CHERYAN COMPOUND ICTD JUNCTION, ALCOT GARDENS,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA
PRADESH.
6. BANDARU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.SANNI BABU AGED 51 YEARS,
OCC BUSINESS R/O.D.NO.38-11-06, TANGETIVARI STREET
2
INNISPETA, RAJAMHENDRAVARAM, E.G.DISTRICT, AP
7. MENTE JAGAN MOHAN, S/O.VITTAL RAO AGED 53 YEARS, OCC
BUSINESS R/O.D.NO.10-364/3, SANTHOSHNAGAR
KONTHAMURU, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM E.G.DISTRICT,ANDHRA
PRADESH
8. T.M.K.VARA PRASAD, S/O.SATYANARAYANA AGED 50 YEARS,
OCC BUSINESS R/O.DOOR NO.50-81-48/4, SEETHAMPETA
VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA
PRADESH.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, A.P.
SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, AP,
VIJAYAWADA.
3. THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER/LICENSING
AUTHORITY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. YASWANTH GADE
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE
The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of Sri Yaswanth Gade, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.Prasanthi
Gude, learned Assistant Government Pleader.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Writ
Petitioners are the successful applicants for obtaining liquor license for two
Excise years. The Official Respondents have fixed a license fee of
Rs.85,00,000/- (Eighty five lakhs Rupees) per annum and the Writ Petitioners
have already deposited the said amount. Provisional License was granted to
the Writ Petitioners and they have commenced their business/trade.
Presently, the Official Respondents have raised an objection with regard to
the location of the shop of the Writ Petitioners on the ground that the shops
are located within 220 meters from the National High Way and accordingly the
Writ Petitioners are directed to shift the shops to a different location in
compliance with the said requirement of 220 meters from the National High
Way.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners would contend that the
application of the distance Rule is contrary to the Rules and the spirit of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Tamil Nadu and other Vs. K.Balu
and another (Civil Appeal Nos.12164-12166 of 2016) dated 23.02.2018
(Ex.P8). Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has drawn the attention of
this Court to the Paragraph No.8 of the order of the Apex Court to indicate that
the Supreme Court had already conceived a situation, which is similar to the
present situation. It is his submission that though the shops of the Writ
Petitioners were categorized as Rajamahendravaram Rural, in terms of the
other Rules and also in terms of the Notification issued by the State
Government, the area where the present shops are located had been merged
with the Municipal Corporation of the Rajamahendravaram vide Andhra
Pradesh Ordinance No.17 of 2020 dated 31.12.2020. To this effect, the
Municipal Corporation of Rajamahendravaram vide Roc.No.3684/2022-G4
had also recognized the Ordinance to the effect that the rural areas of the
Rajamahendravaram have been merged into the Municipal Corporation. This
apart, Paragraph No.9.3 of G.O.Ms.Nos.211 & 212 Revenue (Excise)
Department dated 30.09.2024 stipulates that the Retail Excise Tax (RET)
shops within within five kilometers from borders of Municipal Corporations
shall be the same as that of RET shops within the Municipal Corporation.
4. Viewing this issue from any angle, prima facie, in the opinion of this
Court the distance Rule which is to be applied for the State and National High
Ways cannot be applied to the shops of the Writ Petitioners in as much as the
Rural Area in which the shops of the Writ Petitioners are situated was treated
to have been merged with the Municipal Corporation vide Ordinance
(mentioned supra) and also the proceedings of the Municipal Corporation
dated 14.07.2022.
5. In this view of the matter, the balance of convenience lies in favour of
the Writ Petitioners. Accordingly they shall be permitted to continue their liquor
business/trade in the same premises, subject to the other conditions stipulated
in the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and
Conditions of License) Rules, 2024.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader is directed to convey the gist of
this Order to the Respondents forthwith.
7. Let Counter Affidavit be filed within four weeks. Two weeks thereafter
for filing Rejoinder, if any.
8. Post on 30.12.2024.
_________________________________
GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 18.11.2024
Note: Issue C.C today
B/o
VTS
