Telangana High Court
M/S. Sri Sai Srinivas Wines vs The State Of Telangana on 20 August, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
Writ Appeal No.579 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2025 passed in
W.P.No.7682 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, the
present Writ Petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri Sreenivas Shivaraj, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Deepak Misra, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant; learned Government Pleader for
Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5
and Sri Barla Mallesh Yadav, learned counsel for
respondent No.6.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
had contended that an excise license was granted to the
appellant on 05.12.2023 to operate a retail liquor shop at
Sarangapur village and Mandal. However, as the business
at the licensed premises was not performing well, the
appellant submitted an application to respondent No. 2
AKS,J & VRKR,J
::2:: wa_579_2025
seeking permission to shift the retail shop from
Sarangapur village to Laxmidevipally village, both of which
fall within the same Mandal. Vide proceedings, dated
20.02.2024, respondent No.2 was pleased to permit the
appellant to shift the shop from its original location at
Sarangapur to the newly proposed premises at
Laxmidevipally village in Sarangapur Mandal.
4. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that
respondent No.6, who was also granted a license to run a
retail liquor shop, had filed an appeal before the State
Government challenging the proceedings, dated
20.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2-the Commissioner.
The State Government vide proceedings, dated 16.03.2024
was pleased to set aside the order of respondent No.2.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.03.2024, the
appellant had filed W.P.No.8126 of 2024 before this Court
and the learned Single Judge vide order, dated
22.04.2024, was pleased to dispose of the said Writ
Petition by remanding the matter to the State Government
with a direction to conduct enquiry and pass fresh orders
AKS,J & VRKR,J
::3:: wa_579_2025
after giving an opportunity to the appellant. However, the
State Government, without considering the objections
submitted by the appellant had passed an order vide
memo, dated 15.02.2025, holding that respondent No.2
had permitted the shifting of the appellant's premises,
without any valid grounds. Aggrieved by the said order of
the State Government, the appellant once again
approached this Court by filing subject W.P.No.7682 of
2025 and the learned Single Judge vide order, dated
04.06.2025 was pleased to dismiss the said Writ Petition,
without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the
appellant.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had further
contended that the State Government had set aside the
order of the Commissioner only on the ground that the
Commissioner had not assigned any reasons for permitting
the appellant from shifting his licensed retail outlet from
Sarangapur village to Laxmidevipalli village. Learned
Senior Counsel had further contended that if the State
Government was of the view that the Commissioner has
AKS,J & VRKR,J
::4:: wa_579_2025
not assigned ay reasons, it ought to have remitted the
matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration,
instead of simply setting aside the order. Learned Senior
Counsel further contended that the right to be considered
is a fundamental right, and in the present case, the
Commissioner had, in fact, considered the request of the
appellant for shifting the licensed outlet within the same
Mandal. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has
contended that under proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of
the Telangana Excise (Grant of License of Selling by shop
and conditions of license) Rules, 2012 (for short, 'the
Rules') the Commissioner is empowered to consider and
permit, for valid reasons, the shifting of licensed premises
within the same Mandal, notwithstanding the notified
area. Admittedly, in the instant case, two shops were
notified in Sarangapur Mandal, one in Sarangapur village,
run by the appellant and another in Pembatla of
Sarangapur Mandal, run by respondent No.6. Hence, the
learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter to
the Commissioner for fresh consideration. Therefore,
appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting
AKS,J & VRKR,J
::5:: wa_579_2025
aside the order, dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.7682 of 2025 and let the matter be
remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh
consideration of his case and the order passed by the State
Government vide memo, dated 15.02.2025 is liable to be
set aside, as the State Government ought to have
remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh
consideration.
6. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended apart
from stating that the Commissioner has not assigned
proper reasons, the State Government did not provide any
further elaboration, which means that the Commissioner
had not properly considered the application of the
appellant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, let the
matter be remitted to the Commissioner for fresh
consideration for shifting the shop from Sarangapur village
to Laxmidevipally.
7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 had contended that
since the Commissioner had not assigned any reasons, the
AKS,J & VRKR,J
::6:: wa_579_2025
State Government was justified in setting aside the order
dated 20.02.2024. Hence, the learned Single Judge was
justified in dismissing the Writ Petition. Therefore, there
are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 had
contended that the distance between shop of respondent
No.6 and the shop run by the appellant is only 2
kilometres. If the appellant's retail outlet is shifted to
Laxmidevipally, respondent No.6 will be put to irreparable
loss. Hence, objections were rightly raised and respondent
No.6 availed his right to prefer an appeal. Hence, the State
Government was justified in setting aside the order of the
Commissioner vide proceedings, dated 15.02.2025 and the
learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ
Petition. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions
made by both the parties, is of the view that a perusal of
the proceedings, dated 15.02.2025 passed by the State
AKS,J & VRKR,J
::7:: wa_579_2025
Government discloses that the order of the Commissioner
was set aside only on the ground that no proper reasons
were assigned for permitting the shifting of the appellant's
shop from Sarangapur village to Laxmidevipally village. If
the State Government was of the view that the
Commissioner had not assigned proper reasons, it ought
to have remitted the matter back to the Commissioner for
fresh consideration. As per Rule 28 (3) of the Rules,
shifting of licensed retail outlet is permissible within the
Mandal for valid reasons.
10. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that ends of
justice would be met, if the orders passed by the State
Government vide memo, dated 15.02.2025 and the order,
dated 04.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.7682 of 2025 passed
by this Court are liable to be set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration
of the application submitted by the appellant for shifting
the outlet from Sarangapur to Laxmidevipally. Since the
license of the appellant is set to expire by the end of
November 2025, the Commissioner is directed to consider
AKS,J & VRKR,J
::8:: wa_579_2025
the application of the appellant as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of two (2) weeks from
the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is needless to
say that the Commissioner shall give an opportunity of
hearing respondent No.6 before passing final orders.
11. Accordingly, the order passed by the State
Government vide memo, dated 15.02.2025 and the order,
dated 04.06.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7682 of
2025 are set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
______________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
Date: 20.08.2025
prat
