APHC010366942024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 18677/2024 Between: 1. UPPALA RAMESH, S/O. LATE UPPALA RAM PRASAD, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, LICENSEE OF M/S SRI RAMA DURGA RESTAURARIT AND BAR, R/O. D.NO. 149-8, MANGINAPUDI BEACH, TALLAPALEM VILLAGE, PEDAPATNAM ROAD, MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, MACHILIPATNAM. 4. THE TALLAPALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALLAPALEM VILLAGE, MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in 2 considering the representation dated 10.08,2023 made by the petitioner for rectification of mistake occurred in respect of Form-2B Licence fees of Manginapudi location is illegal arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the 2nt respondent to consider the representation dated 10.08.2023 made by the petitioner and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2"''respondent in considering the representation dated 10.08,2023 made by the petitioner for rectification of mistake occurred in respect of Form-2B Licence fees of Manginapudi location is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the 2nt respondent to consider the representation dated 10.08.2023 made by the petitioner and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. (SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT) 2. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE 3. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.18677 OF 2024 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering the representation dated 10.08,2023 made by the petitioner for rectification of mistake occurred in respect of Form-2B Licence fees of Manginapudi location is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 10.08.2023 made by the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. The petitioner’s father stood as the highest and successful bidder in the auction conducted by the respondent authorities for grant of a 2B license. Accordingly, the petitioner’s father paid the notified amount along with the bid amount of Rs.44,00,000/- (Rupees forty-four lakhs only) and the application fee of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and fifty thousand only). The 3rd respondent thereafter issued Form 2B license on 23.09.2022. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner’s father submitted a representation dated 22.11.2022 to the 3rd respondent requesting rectification of a mistake and refund of the excess amount collected from him. Upon the death of the petitioner’s father, the license was transferred in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted an application dated 10.08.2023 requesting the 2nd respondent to refund the excess amount collected, but there was no response. The petitioner again made applications on 24.06.2024 and 4 16.07.2024. As there was no response to these applications, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it would suffice to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner’s applications dated 10.08.2023, 24.06.2024 and 16.07.2024. 6. Despite lapse of one and half years, no counter-affidavit has been filed. 7. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s applications dated 10.08.2023, 24.06.2024, and 16.07.2024 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 01.12.2025 KBN 5 28 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.18677 of 2024 Date: 01.12.2025 KBN