::1:: APHC01025433202 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329 ] FRIDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12683/2025 Between: 1 . K GIRI BABU, S/O. MUNASWAMY, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 27-191, HARIJANAWADA, PUTTUR TOWN, PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT(ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND 1 . STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 . DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI(ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT). 3 . COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4 . THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER, TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI(ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT). 5 . THE CIRCLE LNSPECTOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, PUTTUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT(ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT). 6 . THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PUTTUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT(ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT). 7 . M/S GOUD WINES, REP.BY ATTHIRALA NARAYANA, S/O. RAMAIAH, R/O. PUTTUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT(ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT) ……….Respondents 2 The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on part of the respondents 2 to 6 in not considering the petitioner legal notice dated 25.04.2025, is illegal, irregular, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of selling by shop Conditions of license) Rules, 2024 and offends Article 21 of Constitution and of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the legal notice dated 25.04.2025 and to take necessary action according to law and pass…..” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein entered into a lease agreement with the landlord of the house, RCB Building and ACC Shed, situated at D.No.30-301, Karvetinagaram Road, Kalyanapuram Village, Puttur Village Accounts, Puttur Mandal and Municipality No.30, Sri Balaji Registration District, Tirupati District, for a period of one year, i.e., from 23.10.2024 to 22.09.2025. Pending the subsistence of the said 3 lease agreement, the 7th respondent herein obtained an A-4 license for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) under the name and style of M/s. Gouda Wines, for a period of two years, by showing the said premises ignoring the subsisting lease in favour of the petitioner. The granting of such license by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is contrary to the A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2024. 4. He further submits that the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, in collusion with respondent No.7, in occupying the leased premises of the petitioner without issuing any notice and without having any legal right, is contrary to the New Excise Policy 2024–26 and the rules framed thereunder. The license granted in favour of the 7th respondent dated 15.04.2025, in respect of the subject premises, is liable to be cancelled by taking into consideration the legal notice issued by the petitioner on 25.04.2025. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, as per the Rules, 2024, once an applicant submits proper documents proving possession over the premises against which the A-4 license is sought, and if the premises satisfy the conditions laid down under the Rules, the respondents may 4 grant the A-4 license in favour of such applicant/licensee. In the present case also, based on the documents submitted by unofficial respondent No. 7, and after conducting physical verification and assessing the suitability of the premises with reference to the Rules, 2024 and the instructions framed thereunder, the A-4 license was granted to the 7th respondent on 15.04.2025. 6. He further submits that any dispute regarding the lease or possession of the premises should be adjudicated by a competent civil court, and not by the licensing authority. He asserts that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are not competent to determine legal rights or legal possession based on the lease claims made by either the petitioner or the 7th respondent in relation to the premises for which the A-4 license was granted. The petitioner, if aggrieved, is at liberty to invoke appropriate legal proceedings before a competent court to resolve the issue. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the 7th respondent was granted the A-4 license on 15.04.2025 in respect of 5 subject premises bearing Door No. 30-301. As per the Rules, 2024, an A-4 license should be granted only after conducting physical verification of the premises, as well as ensuring the suitability and legal possession of the licensee over the subject premises. It is further observed that the subject license has been continuing since 15.04.2025 without any complaint from the landlord. 8. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had entered into an unregistered lease agreement dated 23.10.2024 in respect of the subject premises with the landlord. The contention that the respondents ought not to have granted the A-4 license in favour of the 7th respondent on account of this lease is without merit. This situation is because an unregistered lease agreement which is not in the public domain, and the respondents would have had no reason to reject the application for license on the ground of an existing lease. 9. Further, under the law, any lease agreement relating to immovable property for a period exceeding 11 months must be registered. Only then would the petitioner acquire enforceable legal rights. In the absence of a registered lease deed, the petitioner cannot found fault with the respondents or sought for a writ of 6 mandamus, as contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 10. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to invoke appropriate legal proceedings before the competent civil court to establish his legal rights and seek eviction of the 7th respondent from the subject premises. Therefore, there are no merits in the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 09.05.2025 klk 7 337 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.12683 of 2025 09.05.2025 8 klk