K. Mohan Kumar vs Government of Telangana

P. Naveen Rao, J.—5th respondent is the successful bidder and he was granted provisional licence to establish a retail outlet for sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor in Ward No. 142 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Seethaphalmandi) for the lease period 2014-2015. The 5th respondent intended to locate the outlet in premises bearing Door No. 12-10-652/1, Indiranagar, Warasiguda, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad. The residents of Indiranagar in Warasiguda instituted this writ petition alleging that the proposed location of retail outlet is less than 100 metres from Durga and Sri Ramalayam Temple and recognized school and, therefore, no retail outlet can be located, if it is within 100 metres in accordance with Rule 25 of the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, ''2005 Rules''). When the matter was taken up for admission, to verify the genuineness of the grievance agitated by the petitioners, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, requesting the Advocate Commissioner to visit the premises and to undertake the measurements of the distance between the school and the proposed premises and temple. The Advocate Commissioner undertook the exercise and filed his report. As per the report, the premises, which the petitioners agitated in the affidavit, is less than 100 meters from the recognized school by name St. George High School.

Prima facie, the report would disclose that in the premises, as contended by the petitioners, no retail outlet for sale of liquor can be located in view of the prohibition contained in Rule 25 of 2005 Rules.

The 5th respondent entered appearance and filed counter and vacate petition. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent contends that the premises which was shown by the petitioners is not the premises in which the 5th respondent intend to locate the retail outlet and the Door No. 12-10-652/1 is a different premises and it is not within 100 metres. The premises referred by the petitioners is different. The measurements were taken and after ascertaining the correctness of the distance, the licence was proposed to be granted. Having regard to the apprehensions expressed by the residents of the locality and the stand of the 5th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Seethaphalmandi Circle (2nd respondent) to verify whether the premises proposed by petitioners bearing Door No. 12-10-652/1 is not the same premises referred to by petitioners and after ascertaining that the premises is beyond 100 metres from the recognized school, he shall grant the permission to establish the retail outlet as per the licence granted to 5th respondent. He shall also duly take note of the report of the Advocate Commissioner while identifying the premises and taking measurements. If the second respondent is of the opinion that the premises proposed is within 100 metres, a reasoned order be communicated requesting the licence holder to identify another premises. The exercise to this extent shall be carried out and appropriate decision, as warranted by law, shall be taken within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the second respondent desires to undertake fresh measurements, such measurements shall be taken in the presence of the licence holder as well as the petitioners in the writ petition by duly putting them on notices in advance. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.