9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year 2012-13. The petitioner was granted licence on 02.07.2012. He has established a shop in S.N.puram area. However, on the same day, on which the shop was opened certain women organisations went on agitation for closing the shop. Thereupon, the petitioner has made a representation for permission to shift the shop to ward No.14. The petitioner's request was examined and reports were submitted by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tirupati Urban on 24.08.2012, the Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Tirupati on 25.08.2012, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Tirupati - respondent No.3 herein on 27.08.2012 and the Deputy Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Tirupati - respondent No.2 herein on 30.08.2012. Upon considering these reports, respondent No.1 has issued proceedings dated 31.08.2012, wherein he has directed respondent No.2 to submit a specific report considering the fact that due to recommendations of the Assurance Committee, no shops were notified for ward Nos.13, 14 and 15. Thereafter, the whole process was redone. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector submitted his report on 12.09.2012, the Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assurance Committee guidelines and as the petitioner could not establish A-4 shop even after lapse of four months, he has directed respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to establish A- 4 shop at ward No.14 or in any one of ward Nos.11, 17, 19, 23 and 26, which are not objectionable and not against the guidelines of the Assurance Committee. Interestingly, instead of permitting the petitioner to open A-4 shop in terms of order dated 14.11.2012, respondent No.3 has passed an order on 01.12.2012, wherein he has rejected the petitioner's request for permission to establish his A-4 shop in ward No.14 as the same comes within the prohibited area declared by the Assurance Committee. The petitioner was instructed to procure suitable premises and submit proposals as per Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in implementing the order of respondent No.1, the petitioner filed this writ petition. During the hearing of the case, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise has stated that the competent authority to permit shifting of A-4 shop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rix, respondent No.1 has issued two proceedings on 06.11.2012 and 06.12.2012. Copies of those proceedings are filed by the petitioner along with his reply affidavit. While considering the request of M/s Yallamuri Wines for permission of locating the shop in ward No.14 instead of ward Nos.8 and 10, respondent No.1 has considered the opinion of the District Collector, Chittoor and he has differed with his opinion. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by him on 06.11.2012 as under: "The Collector and District Magistrate has issued the following instructions with regard to establishment of A-4 shops at 14th ward "Ward No.14 has no shops in the previous years. It is implied during notification that ward No.14 is also a prohibited ward in view of the commitment made to the assurance Committee. Therefore ward No.14 is also a prohibited ward shall at no circumstance be considered for establishing shops. Public have filed their grievance that ward No.14 shall remain free of shops in the interest of the welfare of the residents. Therefore in view of the public representation and also the fact that ward No.14 was free of shops previously, It is decided to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplementing his earlier order dated 06.11.2012. Regrettably, in this case, respondent No.1 has taken a different stand in his counter-affidavit even though in his proceeding dated 14.11.2012, he has permitted the petitioner to shift the shop to ward No.14 or any other ward Nos.11, 17, 19, 23 and 26. Thus, I find grave inconsistency in the stand of respondent No.1 between the pre and post filing of the writ petition. Respondent No.1 being the Chief Controlling Authority in all matters connected with the administration under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') and competent to exercise all the powers of Collector under the Act, he has failed to assert himself and ensure that his order permitting the petitioner to shift the shop at ward No.14 is implemented by his subordinate officers. On the contrary, when respondent No.3 who is not vested with the power or authority whatsoever to consider, leave alone, reject the request for shifting of the shops has passed an order on 01.12.2012 diametrically contrary to the order passed by respondent No.1, instead of taking a serious view of the conduct of respondent No.3, respondent No.1 goes to the extent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
