In Re: M. Mohan Goud

C. Kondiah, C.J.—The application under Art. 226 of the constitution by the petitioner, a member of the Toddy Trappers Co- operative Society is for the issuance of a writ to strike down R. 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Rules, 1970.

Sri Paropkari, counsel for the petitioner contends that rule 28 is liable to be struck down as it contravenes the provisions of Art. 47 of the Constitution of India and that no guidelines have been prescribed for the grant of licence under this impugned Rule. He has taken us through Rule 28 and other relevant rules. Rule 28 reads thus:-

"Rule 28: Number of licences: Subject to the requirements of public order, health and safety, the licensing authority may grant any number of licences in each category and to each person in an area."

Rule 28 therefore empowers the licensing authority to grand any number of licences in each category and to each person in an area subject to the requirements of public order, health and safety. Rule 29 enumerates the restrictions on the grand of certain licences specified therein, whereas Rule 30 requires that the application for grant of licence shall be in form F L 11 and should be addressed to the Excise superintendent of the district. Rule 31 prescribes the procedure for grant of licence. The Excise superintendent has to make such enquiry as he may think necessary to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant furnished in the application including proposed for sale.

Licence can be granted to the applicant only when the Excise Superintendent is satisfied that the applicant is eligible for grant of licence and that the statutory requirements are fulfilled. If he is not so satisfied, he shall reject the application recording his reason therefore. Where he is not competent to grant the licence applied for, the application shall be submitted with his recommendation to the Deputy commissioner. where an application is made to the Deputy commissioner direct, he may refer it to the Excise superintendent for making enquiry as provided in sub-rule (1) of this Rule and for submitting his report thereon. Sub-rule (3) would come into ply where an application is made direct to the commissioner. The date of communication of such order appeal to the Deputy commissioner u/s 63 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Sub- section (2) of section 63 provides for an appeal to the commissioner against an order passed by the Deputy commissioner or collector under the Act. Section 64 gives revisional jurisdiction to the Government. In this view, we are satisfied that Rule 28 is not ultra vires, nor can it be asked that no guide lines have been prescribed by the Rule making Authority for the grant of licences under this Rule.

The further submission of Sri Paropkari that Article 47 of the constitution is violated cannot be accede to Articles 47, which is in part IV enumerating the directive principles of state policy enjoins a duty on the state to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and to improve public health. The state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medical purpose of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. We are not concerned in this writ petition with the question whether prohibition is to be introduced as required under Articles 47 of the constitution. The petitioner also is interested in sale of liquor and grand of licences, but, however, does not want licences to be granted for more number of liquor shops. He beings would like to restrict the number of liquor shops in the area in which he is interested. Therefore Articles 47, will not give any aid to the plea of the writ petitioner.

This writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission.

petition dismissed.