Telangana High Court
Jadav Gopal Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 5 July, 2021
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.26631 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in shifting the subject wine shop or canceling the license, issued to 5th respondent, as illegal and also against the settled principles of law, particularly Rule 27(1) of A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by shop and conditions of License) Rules, 2005( for short, 'the Rules') notified vide G.O.Ms.No.598, Revenue (Exc-II) dated 26.05.2006, and consequently, direct the official respondents to shift the said wine shop forthwith from Chima Naik Thanda.
2. Heard Sri A.Anand Achary, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise and Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, unofficial 5th respondent and perused the record.
Contentions of the petitioner
3. 5th respondent has opened a retail outlet of the wine shop in Chima Naik thanda village which is at cross roads of Lingoji thanda gram panchayat as against permission and license given to her to run the wine shop in Lingoji thanda. The said wine shop being run by 5th respondent was near to Lal tekdi school, Gurukul school and Junior College of Lal tekdi, wherein thousands of students have been studying. There is a Hanuman temple nearby the said wine shop. The petitioner herein has made applications dated 25.10.2019 and 13.11.2019 to 2nd and 3rd respondents requesting them to prevent construction of the wine shop at unauthorized place at Chima Naik thanda, which is other than the permitted place of Lingoji thanda. Despite receiving and acknowledging, they have not taken any action. The General Secretary and Vice President of the PESA Committee, 2 established under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (for short, 'the PESA Act, 1996'), along with 31 villagers of Chima Naik thanda, have given a representation dated 25.10.2019 to 3rd respondent to prevent the illegal and unauthorized construction of the wine shop by 5th respondent in the said unauthorized place of Chima Naik thanda but there is no response on the said representation also. Thus, according to the petitioner, 5th respondent is running wine shop in violation of the Rules notified vide G.O.Ms. No.598, Revenue (Exc-II) dated 26.05.2006, prescribing the location of liquor shops should be 100 meters far from the places of worship and educational institutions etc. Contentions of 5th respondent
4. 5th respondent has filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner herein. 5th respondent, belongs to tribal, participated in the tender process with regard to wine shop in the scheduled area. She became a successful bidder and established the said wine shop in the name and style of "M/s.X-Road Wines" under valid license issued by the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise. Adilabad. There is no violation of any conditions of license as alleged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Petitioner is a Member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC) of Nagapur and Mandal Praja Parishad (MPP) of Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad. He is having political background. He is harassing 5th respondent herein and demanding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5th respondent did not pay the said amount and therefore the petitioner started making representations against 5th respondent and filed the present writ petition in the said course of action. According to 5th respondent, she has opened a retail outlet of wine shop in the name and style of 'M/s.X-Road Wines' and she is having valid license dated 01.11.2019 3 issued by the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad. She has been paying all taxes to the authorities concerned regularly.
Contentions of learned Govt.Pleader for Prohibition and Excise
5. The petitioner herein did not make the licensing authority as a party to the writ petition. On field Inspection, the respondent authorities came to know that 5th respondent has established the wine shop within the schedule mentioned in the license. The said wine shop is established by 5th respondent in accordance with the rules and there is no violation of terms of the said license. The School and said Hanuman temple are not located within the prohibited from the wine shop. According to him, the petitioner is not having any locus standi to file the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court
6. The above stated facts would reveal that 1st respondent has issued tenders calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the purpose of opening of wine shop at Lingoji thanda village, Utnoor Mandal. 5th respondent has participated in the said tender process and became successful bidder. Therefore, the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad has issued license vide No.ADB029/2019-21, dated 01.11.2019 for a period from 01.11.2019 to 31.10.2021 in favour of 5th respondent and she has filed a copy of the said license and also trade license issued by gram panchayat dated 30.10.2019. 5th respondent has also filed location sketch and lease deed dated 30.10.2019.
7. A perusal of the said license dated 01.11.2019 issued by the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Adilabad district, would reveal that 5th respondent has established wine shop at X-roads, Lingoji thanda, Utnoor Mandal. Name of the wine shop and its boundaries are also specifically mentioned in the said license. The petitioner is 4 also having trade license obtained from the gram panchayat, Lingoji Thanda. A perusal of the said location plan would reveal that the boundaries mentioned in the same are matching with the boundaries mentioned in the license dated 01.11.2019. She has also entered into a deed of lease dated 30.10.2019 and the boundaries mentioned in the said deed of lease are also matching with the boundaries mentioned in the license.
8. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that as per the field inspection conducted by the respondent officials, 5th respondent has established the wine shop within the boundaries mentioned in the license dated 01.11.2019 and there is no violation of whatsoever on the part of 5th respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the said premises, there is no permission granted by the gram panchayat for construction of the said premises. But unfortunately he has not filed any document in support of his contentions, he has not made the owner of the said premises and gram panchayat as parties to the present writ petition to substantiate his contention. He has not filed any document to show that the said wine shop was constructed without permission from the competent authority i.e. gram panchayat herein. Therefore, the said contention of the petitioner is untenable. Thus the petitioner herein failed to establish by producing any evidence to show that 5th respondent has not established the wine shop at Lingoji thanda and it was established at Chima Naik thanda and therefore it has to be shifted to Lingoji Thanda. Even he has not filed any document/proof to show that 5th respondent has established wine shop at Cheema Naik Thanda instead of Lingoji Thanda and there is violation of terms of license dated 01.11.2019. 5
10. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that 5th respondent has established the said wine shop within the boundaries shown in the license at Lingoji thanda cross roads only and there is no violation of any term of the said license.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner along with reply affidavit, filed to the counter affidavit filed by 5th respondent, has filed a copy of RTI Application dated 16.11.2019, resolution of PESA Committee dated 25.11.2019 with village map and also information furnished dated 03.03.2020 to show that the wine shop is established in Sy.No.47/3, which is assigned land and therefore in the assigned land construction is not permissible. But as stated above, the District Prohibition and Excise officer, Adilabad has granted license dated 01.11.2019 to 5th respondent to establish wine shop at cross roads, Lingoji thanda village, Utnoor Mandal and boundaries were also specifically mentioned. Deed of license dated 30.10.2019, trade license, dated 30.10.2019 issued by gram panchayat, Lingoji thanda and proposal plan filed by 5th respondent would reveal said facts. In the resolution of PESA Committee dated 25.11.2019, it is mentioned that as per PESA Act, they have not proposed or passed any resolution for opening of wine shop at Chima Naik Thanda. PESA Committee area, the wine shop location is assigned by PESA Committee in Sy.No.47/3 whereas, the Cheema Naik thanda village is located in the same survey number. The wine shop is located just 40 meters away from Hanuman temple where the villagers and ancestors are worshipping but they have not challenged the very notification issued by the 1st respondent notifying to open wine shop at Cross Roads, Lingoji Thanda. The petitioner herein has not filed any document to show that 5th respondent has opened the wine shop in 6 violation of the Rules and the said wine shop is not within the prescribed distance as per the rules. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not sustainable.
12. It is relevant to note that 5th respondent has filed sworn counter affidavit stating that the petitioner, a Member of MPTC, demanding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Though the petitioner has filed reply affidavit to the said counter affidavit, there is no denial of the same in the reply affidavit. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is a Member of MPTC, Naganur, Utnoor Mandal, he is not from the said village where the wine shop is located.
13. A perusal of the license dated 01.11.2019 would also reveal that it is valid up to 31.10.2021. Thus, the petitioner failed to establish any ground to satisfy this Court that 5th respondent has established wine shop in Chima Naik Thanda instead of Lingoji thanda cross road as notified by the 1st respondent and as per the license dated 01.11.2019 issued by the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Adilabad. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise and learned counsel appearing for 5th respondent that the petitioner herein has not made the owner of the said premises and gram panchayat concerned as parties to the present writ petition to show that the said wine shop is constructed without permission. However, the petitioner herein failed to establish any violation much less violation of any rule or any provision of the Act to show that 5th respondent has established the wine shop in violation of the same.
14. If the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to the said illegal construction, he has to pursue alternative remedy available to him and he cannot agitate the same in the present writ petition.
7
15. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:05.07.2021 vvr