Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3379 (AP)

Singamreddy Nageswar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/7012/2026 · 2026-06-22

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation:……………………… Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 23.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010130652026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7012/2026 Between: 1. SINGAMREDDY NAGESWAR REDDY, S/O.S JAYARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, LICENSEE OF M/S.CHOWDESWARI WINES(L.NO.61/2024-26), R/O.D.NO.2/210, DEVAGUDI VILLAGE, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT -516434. 2. KUPPANNAGARI VEERA MOHAN REDDY, S/O.K.V.RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, LICENSEE OF M/S.VEERABHADRA WINES (L.NO.62/2024-26), R/O.D.NO.2/99/4, DEVAGUDI, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516434. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2. THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE 2 DEPARTMENT, KADAPA-516001. 4. THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER, KADAPA- 516001. 5. JAMMALAMADUGU MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516434. ...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 pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in fixing the Retail Excise Tax (RET) at Rs 65,00,000/- per annum in respect of the petitioners licensed shops I.e., 1St petitioner L.No.61/2024-26 , 2nd petitioner L.Nos.62/2024-26, both are established and running at present in Jammalamadugu Municipality (earlier Jammalamadugu Nagar Panchayat), YSR Kadapa District, by erroneously treating the population of - Jammalamadugu as above 50,000, which is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 15(1) read with Rule 2(t) of The Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules,. 2024, and also contrary to the law laid down by this Honble Court in W.P.No.32237 of 2025 dated 12.12.2025, and consequently direct the respondents to refix/revise and collect the Retail Excise Tax payable by the petitioner's licensed shops I.e., 1st petitioner L.No.61/2024-26, 2nd petitioner L.Nos.62/2024-26, both are established and running at present in Jammalamadugu Municipality (earlier Jammalamadugu Nagar Panchayat), YSR Kadapa District, by treating the population of Jammalamadugu Municipality (earlier Jammalamadugu Nagar Panchayat) as below 50,000 as per the official Census 2011 and levy the applicable RET of Rs 55,00,000/- per annum, 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 be pleased to direct the respondents to collect the Retail Excise Tax (RET) payable by the petitioner's licensed shops I.e., 1st petitioner L.No.61/2024-26, 2"d petitioner LNos.62/2024-26, both are established and running at present in Jammalamadugu Municipality (earlier Jammalamadugu Nagar Panchayat), YSR Kadapa District, at ₹55,00,000/- per annum, instead 3 of ₹65,00,000/- per annum, without insisting upon payment of the higher amount, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAVULA NAGARJUNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nagaraju Pullagura, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents, collectively submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and has become infructuous. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 23.06.2026. JLV Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable 5 61 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7012/2026 Date: 23.06.2026 JLV