Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16197 (AP)

Draksha Vinay Kumar v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/3051/2026 · 2026-03-29

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010052402026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3051/2026 Between: 1. DRAKSHA VINAY KUMAR, S/O. D. RAMA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, LICENSEE OF M/S. KANAKADHARA WINES, D.NO.38/ 168-5-9, MADRAS ROAD, OLD BYPASS CIRCLE, CTJIINNACHOWK, KADAPA TOWN, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SAI VIHAR APARTMENTS, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA-521108 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516004 4. THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516001 5. THE PROHIBITION AND EXCISE INSPECTOR, A.P. STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, IML DEPOT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516001 6. M/S RAMANA REDDY WINES, REP BY ITS PROP. YERRAGUDI THARUNTEJ REDDY S/O.Y.RAMAGOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.36/261-1-3, NAGAMUNI REDDY COLONY,CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA, YSR (KADAPA) 2 DISTRICT-516004 ...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 tomay be pleased to issue an order or orders or direction or a writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the order vide Cr.No.6030/2025/CPE/F2, dated 02.01.2026 passed by the 2nd Respondent in rejecting the request of the Petitioner for shifting of A4 licensed shop from D.No.38/ 168-5-9, Madras Road, Old Bypass Circle, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa to D.No.37/995-2, Nehru Nagar, Madras Road, Kadapa is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to permit the Petitioner to shift his A4 licensed shop from D.No.38/ 168-5-9, Madras Road, Old Bypass Circle, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa to D.No.37/995-2, Nehru Nagar, Madras Road, Kadapa and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 to direct the respondents to reconsider the request of the petitioner to shift petitioner's A4 licensed shop from D.No.38/ 168-5-9, Madras Road, Old Bypass Circle, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa to D.No.37/995-2, Nehru Nagar, Madras Road, Kadapa by duly taking into consideration the reports of Respondent No.3 and 4 and by suspending the order vide Cr.No.6030/2025/CPE/F2, dated 02.01.2026 passed by the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 list the above mentioned matter under the caption “for being mentioned” and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVITEJA PADIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.3051 OF 2026 ORDER: This Court, vide order dated 03.02.2026, permitted the petitioner herein to file a fresh application to the respondents and the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for shifting the A4 shop. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a fresh application to the respondents and the same was considered by the respondents by permitting the petitioner to relocate his A4 shop. Hence, nothing survives in the present writ petition to adjudicate further. Therefore, the Writ Petition is closed. 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: 30.03.2026 KBN 4 90 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.3051 of 2026 Date: 30.03.2026 KBN