IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV/ (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE gInNAMANENI WRIT PETITION Nosr 18457nf ?nn WRIT PETITION NO: nc on.. Between; 1. G.Prema, W/o G.V.Chalapathi Naidu, aged about 40 years ■ ?ears^S^?f ^emana Naidu years, Both are R/o Madanapalli town, Chittoor District.’ RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD 25061 of 2013 aged about 85 ...Petitioners — AND 1/Jhd'^rohibition & Excise Superintendent, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ...Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the the circumstances stated i be pleased to issue Constitution of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court a Writ, order or direction may more particularly one in the declaring the order passed by the respondent ^ J-6-2013 as illegal, arbitrary and nature of Writ of Mandamus, in Rc.No. 252/2011-A3 dated 21 Rule 10 (2) of A.P. Excise contrary to Bar and same.^ ( Grant of Licence of Selling By ' and consequently set aside the conditions of licence) Rules 2005 LA. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP Mr>: 225-.?9 OF OMty Petition under Section IsfcPC praying that in the circumstances ated ,n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order passed by the respondent in Rc.No. 252/2011- dated 21-6-2013 pending disposal of the above Writ petition.,. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.VIJAYA RAJU REP. / SRI P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE^ WRIT PETITION NO: 25061 OF 2016 Between: 1. G.Prema, W/o G.V.Chalapathi Naidu, aged about 42 years, R/o Madanapalli town, Chittoor District. 2. G.V.Ramanappa Naidu, S/o Pedda Vemana Naidu, aged about 87 years, R/o Madanapalli town, Chittoor District. ...Petitioners— AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principle Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. ...Respondents^ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No. 132/2015/A dated 9-6-2016 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 10 (2) of A.P. Excise ( Grant of Licence of Selling By Bar and conditions of licence) Rules 2005 and consequently set aside the same. ^ I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 30935 OF 20161 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order passed by the 2 nd respondent in Rc.No. 132/2015/A dated 9-6-2016 pending disposal of the above Writ petition. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWVMP. NO: 3421 OF 2016) Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principle Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Chittoor, Chittoor District. The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Madanapalii, Chittoor District. 1. 2. 3. ...Petitioners AND G.Prema, W/o G.V.Chalapathi Naidu, aged about 42 years, R/o Madanapalli town, Chittoor District. G.V.Ramanappa Naidu, S/o Pedda Vemana Naidu, aged about 87 years, R/o Madanapalli town, Chittoor District. 1. 2. ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt: 28-07-2016 in WPMP.No.30935 of 2016 in WP.No.25061 of 2016. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.VIJAYA RAJU REP. SRI P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following common order: 1 APHC010279312016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos: 18457 of 2013 & 25061 of 2016 W.P.No.18457 of 2013: Between: 1.G.PREMA, W/O G.V.CHALAPATHl NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2.G.V,RAMANAPPA NAIDU, S/0 PEDDA VEMANA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. BOTH ARE R/0 MADANAPALLI TOWN ...PETITIONER(S) AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, CHITTOOR, 1.THE PROHIBITION CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitloner{S): 1.P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1.GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE W.P.No.25061 of 2016: Between: 1.G.PREMA, W/O G.V.CHALAPATHl NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O MADANAPALLI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2.G.V.RAMANAPPA NAIDU, S/O PEDDA VEMANA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/O MADANAPALLI TOWN, CHITTOOR district. ...PETITIONER(S) AND ^ ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITq department HYDERABAD. principle SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, 2.THE PROHIBITION&EXCISE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. SUPERINTENDENT, CHITTOOR, 3.THE PROHIBITION CHITTOOR DISTRICT. & EXCISE INSPECTOR MADANAPALLI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR PROHIBITIONS EXCISE (AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORnFP- Heard Sri K. Vijaya Raju, learned Counsel Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned Counsel Ms. Prashanthi, learned Assistant Government Excise. 2. These two Writ Petitions are filed by the licensee Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License License) Rules, 2005. License has been Writ Petitioners herein at the address Madanapally commencing from 03.10.:“ situated in Dr.No.15-6-8 of R.R Colony has floor and that at the time of submitting , Form-2B, it is submitted that the Writ Petitioners have submitted all the particulars of the plot, building and its area including plot area, plinth appearing on behalf of for the Writ Petitioners and Pleader for Prohibition & in Form-2B under the of Selling by Bar and Conditions of granted to the Bar belonging to the bearing Dr.No.15-6-8, R.R Colony, 2006 to 30.06.2007. The said building ground floor, first floor and second an Application for grant of License iin area 3 (floor wise), carpet area, parking area and the location of the building. The Writ Petitioners have also submitted the approved drawing/plan prepared by the licensed Surveyor of the Madanapalli Municipality along with the Application. It is submitted that even the License issued in Form-2B clearly indicates the particulars of the premises along with boundaries. The Writ Petitioners have been carrying on the business in the licensed premises since It is further 2006 by paying the license fee as fixed by the Authorities, submitted that basing on the information given by the Audit General’s Audit Party, the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise of Chittoor has issued Show Cause Notice to the Writ Petitioners on 18.03.2013 (nearly after 7 years) to remit an additional amount of Rs.2,80,000/- for the year 2010-2011 towards additional license fee on the ground that the licensed premises have non contiguous consumption halls. The Writ Petitioners have submitted reply on 28.03.2013. The Writ Petitioners, in their explanation, have objected to the unilateral, belated and arbitrary action of the Auditor General’s Office raising demands without even visiting the premises. The Writ Petitioners have enclosed blue print of the Bar Premises along with the explanation. It has been clearly stated that there is no non-contiguous enclosurein the premises. Challenging the said Show Cause Notice, the Writ Petitioners have filed W.P.No. 15992 of 2013. Vide Order dated 07.06.2013, a learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court had disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction not to initiate any coercive steps until the explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners dated 28.03.2013 is considered and a final decision is rendered. Therefore, the Respondents have passed the Final Order on 21.06.2013 stating that the request of the Writ Petitioners had been considered and rejected. Consequently, the Writ Petitioners were directed to pay 10% of the license fee towards non-contiguous portions of the licensed premises. This Final Order came to be challenged by the Writ Petitioners by filing W.P.No.18457 of 2013. It was contended by the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.18457 of 2013 that the impugned Order dated 21.06.2013 came to be passed behind the back of the Writ Petitioners and without complying with the 3. directions of this Court in W.P,No.15992 of 2013, inasmuch as the Court had*^ speoificaiiy directed the Officiai Respondents to give an opportunity of being heard to the Writ Petitioners. 4. Taking note of the contention of the Writ Petitioners Order came to be passed behind the back of the Writ Petitioners vide Order dated 28.06.2013 Proceeding dated 21.06.2013. that the impugned , this Court, was pleased to suspend the impugned While so, the Official Respondents have issued another Notice dated 12.07.2016 thereby, raising a demand for payment of Rs. 10,50,000/- for the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Notice came to be challenged by the Writ Petitioners by filing W.P. No.25061 of 2016. By Order dated 28.07.2016, the impugned Order dated 09.06.2016 came to be suspended in W.P.No.25061 of 2016. This 5. Both the Writ Petitions have been tagged together since the common issues arise. 6. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that entire plan of the building with the blue print has been submitted to the Official Respondents at the time of obtaining the license in Form-2B at the very inception. He would also submit that the contention of the Respondents that the consumption halls are non-contiguous is factually incorrect, submit that the entire building bearing Dr.No. 15-6-8 has been occupied by the Writ Petitioners for the purpose of running a Bar. Merely because the stair cases for each floor are located outside, it is inappropriate on the part of the Official Respondents to assume that the halls are non-contiguous . He would submit that the ground floor is contiguous to the first floor and first floor is contiguous to the second floor. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also taken this Court through the building plan submitted by the Writ Petitioners (Ex.P.6 in W.P.No. 18457 of 2013). This Court has perused the building plan. The plan for each of the floor has been given separately. The ground floor consists of three consumption rooms, one consumption hall and a bar-counter. The first He would 7. 5 floor consists of two consumption halls (out of them one is Air Conditioned consumption hall) and a stock-room. The second floor consists of open terrace with a kitchen and working area. This indicates that the whole building is being run as a single unit inasmuch as the utilities like bar-counter (ground floor), stock-room (1®* floor) and kitchen (on the terrace) have been located in different floors. It is not as if the bar-counter, stock-room and the kitchen are situated in each floor independently. The kitchen on the second floor would cater to the needs of the customers of ground floor, first floor and the second floor. The stock-room on the first floor would hold stock that is required to be utilized for the ground floor, first floor and the second floor. Similarly, the bar counter situated in the ground floor caters to the needs of all the customers. Merely because the stair-cases from ground floor to the first floor and from first floor to the second floor are situated in an open area, it cannot be assumed that the consumption-rooms are non-contiguous. When all the consumption-rooms are situated in one building and that such building is entirely being utilized as one unit, it is inappropriate on the part of the Respondent Officials to categorize each floor as non-contiguous and raise excess demand. 8. Admittedly, for the first time, the bar license has been granted to the Writ Petitioners for the Excise Years commencing from 03.10.2006 to 30.06.2007. It appears from the facts that the Writ Petitioners have been continuing the bar services from the same premises at least up to 2013-14, as the impugned Notice dated 12.07.2016 (Ex.P.1) in W.P.No.25061 of 2016 indicates. The same plan was available to the Respondents and the Writ Petitioners have got the bar license for the first time in the year 2006 itself. Having kept quiet until 2013, it is inappropriate on the part of the Officials to have raised a claim of this nature which reminds to this Court as regards the conduct of the Official Respondents to be acting like Merchant of Venice. 6 of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Order passed by the sole Respondent dated 21.06.2013 bearing W.P.No.18457 of 2013 and the impugned Order 9. In view Rc.No.252/2011-A3 in passed by the 2 in V\/.P.No.25061 of 2016 are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, Writ Petitions allowed, thereby, quashing the impugned Order dated 21.06.2013 bearing Rc.No.252/2011-A3 in W.P.No.18457 of 2013 and the impugned Order dated 09.06.2016 bearing Rc.No. 132/2015-A in W.P.No.25061 of 2016. No order as Respondent dated 09.06.2016 bearing Rc.No.132/2015-A nd are to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. 10. Sd/- Wl. RAWIESH BABU deputy registrar //true COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, ^ ■ ScSB« Scf ,, Chittoor, Chittoor District. Madanapalli, Chittoor District. Prohibition & Excise Superintendent 2. The 3. The Prohibition & Excise Inspector i Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4. One CC to Sri P Ganga Rami GP for Prohibition & Excise 5 TwoCCsto [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies RAM if HIGH COURT DATED:05/06/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.18457 of 2013 & 25061 of 2016 P HJUL 2025 Current Section m ALLOWING BOTH THE WPs WITHOUT COSTS