Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26960 (AP)

ATHIRALA NARAYANA v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/19953/2025 · 2025-07-31

Subba Reddy Satti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010382252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19953/2025 Between: 1. ATHIRALA NARAYANA, S/O ATHIRALA RAMAIAH, AGED 25 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. CHILLAMURU VILLAGE, KALAGURTHIPADU MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT AT COLLECTOR OFFICE, TIRUPATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, AT COLLECTORATE OFFICE, TIRUPATI. 3. THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PUTTUR, AT EXCISE OFFICE, PUTTUR. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION. 5. VELUKURU PRATHAP, , S/O VELUKURU MURALI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, 6. DILEEP, S/O KUMARASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,RESIDENT OF PUDIPATIA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.) 7. GANGADHARAM NAIDU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,RESIDENT OF PUDIPATIA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI 2 DISTRICT.) 8. JODUGIRI GOPALAIAH, S/O NADIMIMANDIRI, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF PUDIPATIA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, in interfering with the business activity of the petitioner and in insisting the petitioner to shift the wine shop bearing D.No.30-301, Ward No.17, Kalyanapuram, Karvetinagaram Road, Puttur Municipality, Tirupati District is illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct .the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to insist the petitioner to shift the wine shop from premises bearing D.No.30-301, Ward No. 17, Kalyanapuram, Karvetinagaram Road, Puttur Municipality, Tirupati District and be pleased to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to issue interim directions to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to interfere with the business activity of the petitioner pending disposal of the WP and be pleased to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri V.Venkat Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. G.Prasanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for respondents 1 to 4. 3 2. The notice in respect of the respondents 5 to 8 is dispensed with since no adverse order is passed affecting the right or interest of the respondents 5 to 8. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been granted a license for the sale of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor in Puttur Municipality vide L.No.TPT/GK/02/2024-2025, for the period from 11.02.2025 to 30.09.2026. The petitioner was granted a license to run the shop at premises in D.No.30-301, Ward No.17, Kalyanapuram, Karvetinagaram Road, Puttur Municipality, Tirupati District. Learned counsel would also submit that the respondents 2 to 4 and the influence made by the respondents 5 to 8 are interfering with the petitioner’s running business. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted instructions of the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Tirupati. The instructions would reflect that the respondents 2 to 4 are not interfering. There are disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 8. The instructions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader are recorded and made part of the record. 5. Given the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the petitioner business activity at premises in D.No.30-301, Ward No.17, Kalyanapuram, Karvetinagaram Road, Puttur Municipality, Tirupati District, without following due process. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 01.08.2025 SNI 4 247 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19953/2025 Date: 01.08.2025 SNI