APHC010106742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5417/2025 Between: G Ganga ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5417/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein in insisting the petitioner to shift the IMFL/FL shop from the premises bearing Sy.No.168, Yedugundlapadu Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District after commencing the business in pursuance of the provisional license by the 4th respondent herein as the said proposed shop is situated contrary to Rule 24(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Selling by shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2024 without notice and without any order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principals of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to renew provisional license without insisting shifting of the petitioner’s shop from the present license premises and pass such other order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted IMFL/FL license at the premises bearing Sy.No.168, Yedugundlapadu Village, Maddipadu Mandal. While granting the shop, the respondent authorities observed that the petitioner complied with Rule 24(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Selling by shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2024 and specified the distance between national highway as well as 3 shop, which is more than 500 meters. The petitioner was permitted to sell the IMFL/FL as per the license granted. While things stood thus, without giving any notice and without providing opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the Act, the respondent authorities have orally directed the petitioner to shift the shop, which is contrary to the Rule 24(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Selling by shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2024. He further submits that as per the procedure contemplated under the Rules to measure the distance from the national highway to subject shop, they shall conduct survey, after issuing due notice to the petitioner and other stakeholders, if any along with the officers concerned. But without issuing any notice, the respondents cannot direct orally to shift the shop, contrary to the Rules, 2024. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents furnished the written instructions issued by the 4th respondent, who is the competent authority and in whose jurisdiction, the subject shop was situated, wherein it is stated as follows: “I submit that on receipt of proposals from the petitioner for establishment of regular A4 shop, the Station House Officer, Chimakurthy Proh & Excise Station, who is the territorial Officer of Maddipadu Mandal visited the premises and measured the distance between the centre point of the shop premises to the nearest point of the outer edge of Highway and it is within 220 Mts. The 4 Station House Officer informed the petitioner to secure another suitable premises, as the present premises is in violation of Rule-24.” 5. On perusal of the instructions submitted by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that the respondent authority did not conduct the measurements as contemplated under the Act/Rules. As such, the respondents shall follow due procedure for conducting measurements and for shifting of the subject shop. Therefore, the respondents are under the statutory obligation to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the Act/Rules. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to insist the petitioner to shift the shop without conducting measurements by following due procedure as contemplated under Rule 24(5) of Rules, 2024. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further and pass a speaking order, after conducting measurements/enquiry as per the procedure contemplated under the law. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 05.03.2025 TTPPSS 6 42 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:5417 of 2025 05.03.2025 TTPPSS