Shaik Mastan Vali V. The Commissioner Prohibition AND Excise

WP/16659/2009

AI Insights

The case involves three writ petitions challenging the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Vijayawada, to K. Rama Rao for running a bar and restaurant named M/s Sri Srinivasa Restaurant in a predominantly residential area. The petitioners argued that the establishment violated the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling By Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, particularly Rule 6, which restricts the grant of licenses within certain distances from educational institutions and places of worship. The respondents countered that the distances were measured accurately and found to be compliant with the rules, and that the area had a mixed-use character with significant commercial activities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 735984 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: HEERANAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION, HYD. V. GOVERNMENT OF A.P., MANDAKINI RESTAURANT AND BAR v. DY. COMMR. OF PROH. & EXCISE, SAU. SHAILAJA RAJENDRA BADWAIK vs. HON'BLE MINISTER, DEPARTMENT OF ESTASTE EXCISE, SMT. SHANTABAI BABAN MULUK & ANOTHER vs. SMT. ASHA JANARDHAN CHASKAR, ROBUSTTA vs. THE COMMISSONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI, PROF. G.SHAINESH & OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. NAGPUR DISTILLERS, NAGPUR, M.C.MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA, V.NARASIMHAM v. GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CPRPORATION HYD., R.K.MITTAL v. STATE OF U.P., DURGA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF U.P., L.HIRDAY NARAIN v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BAREILLY, A.V.VENKATESWARAN v. RAMCHAND SOBHRAJ WADHWANI, HARBANSLAL SAHNIA v. INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD.
• Laws Referred To: A.P.Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling By Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, G.O.Ms.No.674, M.A. dated 29.12.2006, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Bye-Laws of the Regulation of Eating Houses of Hotels, 1973, Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2008
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIKAS SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKAS MISHRA
• Keywords: Bar and Restaurant License; Commercial Activity; Morality; Prohibition and Excise; Public Health; Residential Area; Welfare of the People
• Section: 6; 5; 521

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NOS.16659, 17698 AND 20606 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER Since, the issue involved in all the three writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions are challenging the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Vijayawada, Krishna District in Rc.No.185/2008/B3 dated 31.7.2009 in granting permission to one K.Rama Rao, for running bar in the name and style of M/s Sri Srinivasa Restaurant at D.No.44-7-7, Ajith Singh Nagar, Dabakotlu Centre, Vijayawada and the consequential licence issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada under Form 2-B, in Reference No.4/2009-10 dated 31.7.2009 for sale of Indian Liquor/Foreign Liquor by bar to be consumed on the premises. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the premises in question, where the official respondents granted permission for running the Bar and Restaurant, is a residential area as notified in the master plan by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.674, M.A. dated 29.12.2006 and the area is not a main road and the said premises is situate in the midst of residential locality and there is an educational institution known as Crescent Educational Society, Brahmamgari Temple, Mosque and a Church. All these institutes are situate below 100 mts. from the premises in question. As per Rule 5(2) of the A.P.Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling By Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, (for short ‘the Rules’) the Commissioner shall have due regard to requirement and other factors, as deems fit, may grant a prior clearance in Form -2A to applicants for establishing a bar. In the present case, the Commissioner has not examined the suitability before granting prior clearance for establishing the bar. Under Rule 6 (1)(ii) of the Rules, within 100 meters from educational institution recognized by the Government, places of public worship such as Temples registered by the Endowments Department, Mosques registered with the Wakf Board, Churches and Hospitals, grant of license for establishing a bar, is restricted. Further, under Rule 6(1)(iii), granting of licence for establishing a bar is restricted within 500 meters of predominantly residential area. In the present case, the area in question, which is known as Ajit Sing Nagar, is predominantly a residential area and as per the master plan of the Government under G.O.Ms.No.674, M.A. dated 29.12.2006, the area is earmarked as residential zone. The Municipal Corporation has granted permission for the construction of the premises, in which the present bar is sought to be established, for residential use and hence no commercial activity can be permitted. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions are the persons living in the adjacent and the opposite premises and their case is that they are seriously affected by the activity of the bar. The women folk and all the residents are seriously opposing for the establishment of the bar in their locality. Therefore, they submitted representations to the Excise Officials. But without considering the representations and the vehement opposition and without opportunity, the respondents granted permission under the impugned proceedings to run the bar. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petitions are filed. 4. This court on 13.8.2009 while ordering notice before admission in W.P.No.16659 of 2009, directed the parties to maintain status subsisting as on that date. W.P.No.17698/2009 was admitted on 22.9.2009 and in view of the common interim orders of status quo granted in W.P.No.16659/2009, the WPMP.No.23205/2009 in WP.No.17698/2009 was dismissed on 22.9.2009. On filing of vacate petitions by unofficial respondent, who was granted bar permission, in WVMP.No.2657/2009 in W.P.No.16659/2009 and WPMP.No.23205/2009 in W.P.No.17698/2009, this court, by common order dated 22.9.2009, vacated the interim order. Challenging the same, the writ petitioners in WP.Nos.16659 and 17698 of 2009 filed writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1250 and 1266 of 2009. The Division Bench of this court by order dated 11.11.2009 rejected the appeals and directed that the writ petitions 16659 and 17698 of 2009 and also another public interest litigation filed for the very same relief, to be disposed of by the learned single Judge. 5. The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, who is the respondent no.2 in W.P.Nos.16659 and 20606 of 2009 filed counter affidavits and while denying the averments made in the writ petition, stated that no educational institutions, mosques and churches are located within the restricted distance of 100 mts. from the bar premises. An Upper Primary School by name Crescent (E.M.) School is functioning in the area at Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada and that before issuance of 2B Licence, the Station House Officer, Vijayawada – West - West Prohibition and Excise Station, on 29.7.2009 found that distance is about 114 mtrs. Further there is a Mosque by name Jajid-e-Musthafa in the area and the Station House Office measured the distance and found it as 120 mts from the proposed bar premises at D.No.42-7-7. There is a small christian prayer house by name GOD Witness A.G. Prayer House, located at a distance of 106 mts. and the Paster L.Kiran Kumar, who is maintaining the above prayer house informed that he is maintaining the prayer hall in his own house and it is not linked up with any missionary organization. The temple (Brahmamgari Matham), which is located in the area, is not registered by the Endowment Department and it is not mentioned in the list of temples registered by Endowments Department. Hence, there is no objection to grant 2-B Bar licence. It is further stated that the petitioners are residents of that locality and it is also a fact that it is not a predominantly a residential area. The area is having number of business establishments mixed with residential houses and it is a commercial area as well. As per File No.10302/73/H4 of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, the road on which the 2B licence granted, is 50 feet road, and it is a main road used for shopping purposes. Number of shops, with various kinds of businesses, are functioning on the said road. It is further stated that the area, in which the licence for running a restaurant and a bar was issued, is located on the main road used for shopping purpose. Simply because, the Municipal Authorities have accorded permission for construction of residential purpose, the entire area cannot be construed as residential area. With these averments and stating that licensed premises is in conformity with Rule 6 of the Rules, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The Commissioner of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation – 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.16659/2009. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the 4th respondent submitted an application for permission to start a Bar and Restaurant and it is also a fact that certain complaints have been received, objecting for the establishment of Bar and Restaurant by the 4th respondent, on the plea that it is nearer to educational institution and also to certain places of worship. This respondent – Municipal corporation, is concerned with issuing of trade license under the provisions of Section 521 of H.M.C. Act under the D & O Trade Licensing. It is a fact that the answering respondent Corporation received certain complaints from a section of people demanding for not permitting the proposed Bar and Restaurant and the contentions of those complaints have been critically examined and was found that the contentions in the said complaint are not so alarming and therefore, the licence under Section 521 of H.M.C. Act was sanctioned in favoaur of 4th respondent. However, the 4th respondent needs to obtain a separate licence from the 1st and 2nd respondents after following terms and conditions as laid down under relevant law. It is stated that the Crescent Education Society situate at Block Nos. 34 and 35, Ajithsingh Nagar, 42-7, Dabakotla Road, near Sai Krupa Market, is not having any permission to conduct the school and therefore, it is an unauthorized school located in the residential area. The present proposal is for establishment of Bar and Restaurant which is regulated by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Bye-Laws of the Regulation of Eating Houses of Hotels, 1973. It is further submitted that the contentions of the petition are not correct that the proposed Bar and Restaurant is nearer to schools and temples. In fact, the area is a predominant commercial area and the petitioner’s school is located in the rear side street of the proposed bar and restaurant. The temple and church are also located in a far distance. Further, the church which is mentioned by the petitioner is not a full-fledged church, but a residence converted as a prayer place. It has been thoroughly examined and only after obtaining no objection letters from the neighbours, the trade licence was granted. The application of the 4th respondent has been processed strictly as per procedure laid down and dully following the rules and accordingly the D and O Trade license was sanctioned. The contention of the petitioner that the proposed Bar and restaurant is situated among the residential area and is nearer to places of worship and educational institutions, is incorrect. Moreover, all these establishments are more than 100 mts. Away from the proposed bar and restaurant. The area of the proposed Bar and restaurant is a predominantly occupied with commercial establishments, though it is basically a residential area. Further, there is one existing bar and restaurant in the locality for which no objection was raised. The petitioner with some personal motives, raising objections with all imaginary complications. However, the respondent Municipal Corporation have no objection to revoke the permission if there is any inconvenience with regard to the parking or in maintenance of restaurant in contravention of the provisions regulating the maintenance of restaurants. With these averments, the writ petition is sought to be dismissed. 7. The official respondent no.4, who was granted bar permission, filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.16659/2009 and supporting the impugned proceedings and with similar averments made in the counter affidavits of the official respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.16659/2009 filed reply affidavits and while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.674 M.A., dated 29.12.2006 and also as per the land use certificate issued by the VGTM Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada vide L.Dis.No.C2/1920/2009 dated 13.8.2009 the area in question is exclusively meant for residential purpose and the excise officials have no authority to determine this aspect and the municipal authorities granted trade licence in the area in question only to carryout petty businesses. The petitioner has filed a map prepared by a licensed Surveyor of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation with licence no.36/2008 and as per the said plan, the school is located at a distance of only 91.75 mts. With these averments inter alia, the petitioner sought to set aside the bar permission granted by the official respondent. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the respective writ affidavits, further submitted that grant of permission by the official respondents to the unofficial for running a bar and restaurant in the locality, which is exclusively meant for residential use as per the master plan under G.O.Ms.No.674, and within 100 meters from the educational institution, which is recognized and also within 100 meters to a temple, mosque and Church, is contrary to Rule 6 of the Rules and though the same was brought to the notice of the authorities even prior to grant of licence, the same was not considered in proper perspective. The learned counsel contended that under G.O.Ms.No.674, residential use zone is explained and uses permitted under the residential use, does not envisage running a bar and restaurant. He stated that the businesses that are alleged to be carrying in the locality are only cut-pieces centre, biryani point and similar such petty businesses, which facilitates the residents of that locality and certainly bar and restaurant, where liquor is sold, is hazardous and will have ill-effect on the residents of the locality and that all the people in the locality, in one voice, are opposing for running of bar and restaurant in that locality. It is stated that under Rule 6, of the Rules, restrictions on the grant of licences, have been mentioned and under 6(1)(iii), within 500 meters of predominantly residential area, the grant of licence is prohibited, but however, such sanction can be granted, if the proposed premises is located on a main road, used for shopping purposes. In the present case, the premises in question is not a main road and the Corporation has issued an endorsement dated 6.6.2012 to that effect. When the Corporation has categorically stated that the road on which the bar premises is located, is not a main road, the 2nd respondent – Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, is not justified in stating in the counter affidavit, that it is a main road. It is further contended that when the master plan under G.O.Ms.No.674 specifically states that the present area is meant for residential use, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, is not correct is stating in the counter affidavit that it mixed with residential houses and it is a commercial area as well. He stated that as per the counter affidavit filed by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, the measurements of the distances from School, Mosque, Temple and Church are taken by Station House Officer. It is contended that he is not competent to measure the distance. The licenced surveyor is competent and as per his survey, map has been prepared and the said map clearly shows that the said places are situate below 100 mts from the bar premises. It is stated that because of the activities of bar and restaurant, there are many ill-effects on the residents of the locality and many criminal cases are also registered and it has become a hazardous to the residents of the locality. 10. Relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this court reported in HEERANAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION, HYD. V. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.[1], the learned submitted that this court in similar facts and circumstances, where permission is granted under the Rules, within 100 mts of educational institution, held that issuance of such licence is in violation of the rules. It is contended that though the writ petition was pending before this court, the licence granted in favour of the unofficial respondent was renewed and while renewing also, the unofficial respondent has not produced any lease deed from the owner of the premises as required under Rule 9-A and this also amounts to violation of the rules and hence the renewal of the licence, cannot be granted. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of a learned single Judge reported in MANDAKINI RESTAURANT AND BAR v. DY. COMMR. OF PROH. & EXCISE[2]. The learned counsel contended that Article 47 of the Constitution of India, enjoins on the State to introduce prohibition, as State Policy and since the same is not possible for administrative or financial reasons, the state shall control proliferation of the activity and vending of liquor is subject to public health, morality and welfare of the people. He stated that in the present case, the bar and restaurant is situate within 100 meters of the educational institution and it will have impact on the students also and the society people are vehemently opposing of the said activity in their area, which is meant for residential purpose. Therefore, the official respondents are not justified in granting and renewing the permission granted to the unofficial respondent contrary to the rules. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in SAU. SHAILAJA RAJENDRA BADWAIK vs. HON’BLE MINISTER, DEPARTMENT OF ESTASTE EXCISE, (W.P.NO.3440/2011 dated 27.6.2012), SMT. SHANTABAI BABAN MULUK & ANOTHER vs. SMT. ASHA JANARDHAN CHASKAR[3] Judgment of the High Court of Madras in ROBUSTTA vs. THE COMMISSONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI[4] W.P.No.16881 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 dated 1.8.2011 (2011 (4) CTC 843), judgment of High Court of Karnataka in PROF. G.SHAINESH & OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS[5] and the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. NAGPUR DISTILLERS, NAGPUR[6]. The learned further contended that as per the master plan, the area in question is exclusively meant for residential use and without there being any change to the user of the land, permitting the commercial activity in residential zone, is illegal. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgments reported in M.C.MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA[7], V.NARASIMHAM v. GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CPRPORATION HYD.[8] and R.K.MITTAL v. STATE OF U.P.[9]. With these averments, the impugned proceedings granting licence to the unofficial respondent permitting to run the bar and restaurant, was sought to be set aside. 11. The learned Government Pleader for Excise, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, further submitted that the authorities, after due verification and enquiry, and in compliance of the rules granted permission to the unofficial respondent for running a bar and restaurant and the petitioners with ulterior motive, filed the writ petitions and the same may be dismissed. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent submitted that the allegation that the Educational Institution, mosque, church and temple are within 100 mts. from the bar in question, is factual incorrect statement. The authorities after due verification and by following the procedure, granted licence and the same cannot be interfered with by this court. He stated that the unofficial respondent has invested amounts for the purpose of running the bar and restaurant after complying with the procedure prescribed and the petitioners are not justified in filing the writ petitions. He stated that as per the counter filed by the Municipal Corporation, the educational institution, has no permission and moreover, it is situate beyond 100 mts. and there are commercial activities and this fact has been taken judicial notice of by this court while allowing the vacate petition. Relying on the judgment of a learned single Judge in AASHRITH HOTELS v. ASSISTANT MENTAL OFFICER OF HEALTH[10] he contended that opening of bars even in residential areas is permissible if the conditions mentioned in Rule 29 are satisfied and that when a objection was raised by the Municipal Corporation for issuance of NOC, this court held that refusal to issue NOC on the ground that the premises of the petitioner restaurant is in a residential area without taking into consideration provisions of the Excise Act and the Rules, is not legal and improper and that the fact that zoning regulations are silence about establishment of bars or liquor shops in residential area, is not a ground to deny NOC by the Corporation and that even opening of bars even in residential areas is permissible if the conditions mentioned in Rule 29 are satisfied. He stated that in the present case, the petitioner has satisfied with the conditions and followed the procedure and hence the allegations of the petitioners are not justified. He contended that the petitioner in W.P.No.16659/2009 is running an oil business in the premises at D.No.42-7-8, Dabakotla Centre, Ajitsingh Nagar. He submitted that a cut pieces centre is being run at D.No.42-7-6 and also a biryani point is being run in the very same vicinity and the area is predominantly a commercial area. He stated that when the petitioners are running their business, they cannot have any objection in the business of the unofficial respondent, who has permission under the law. By Producing copy of the application of the owner of the premises in question for regularization of unauthirsed construction, he pointed out that from the House Tax Collection Details, that under the usage column, it is shown as ‘commercial’. He alternatively contended that in the present case, there are many disputed questions of fact, which this court under Article 226 cannot delve, and under Section 63 of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2008, appeal is provided and under Section 6, Revision is provided to the Government. If the petitioners have grievance, they can avail the alternative remedy and hence, the writ petitions are not maintainable. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners while opposing the above contention, contended that this court admitted the writ petition, passed interim orders and hence at this stage, directing the parties to avail alternative remedy, may not be justifiable. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in DURGA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF U.P.[11] and L.HIRDAY NARAIN v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BAREILLY[12]. It is contended that either the unofficial respondent, nor the official respondents have take the plea of alternative remedy and hence, at this stage, such a contention, cannot be permitted. It is contended that the petitioners have demonstrated before this court the violation of rules made by the respondents in granting the permission to the unofficial respondent and in view of these facts, this court has to adjudicate the issue and cannot relegate the parties to avail alternative remedy. Relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in A.V.VENKATESWARAN v. RAMCHAND SOBHRAJ WADHWANI[13] and HARBANSLAL SAHNIA v. INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD.[14], the learned counsel contended that availability of an alternate remedy is not a bar for entertaining the writ petition and that it is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In the present case, as the permission to the unofficial respondent has been granted in violation of the rules, this court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, can set aside the same. With these averments, the writ petitions were sought to be allowed, by setting aside the impugned proceedings. 14. From the above, the main contention of the petitioners is that the permission to the unofficial respondent is granted in violation of Rule 6 of the Rules, since the premises is alleged to be within 100 mts. from an educational institution, church, mosque and a temple and that the premises in question is in a residential area. Rule 5 deals with application for licence and under Rule 6, restrictions on the grant of licence is provided and the said provision, to the extent relevant, is extracted as under: 5. Application for licence:- (1) The person intending to establish a Bar, may submit an application in Form -1A to the Commissioner enclosing a challan of Rs.1,000/- to get prior clearance. (2) The Commissioner having due regard to requirement and other factors as he deems fit, may grant prior clearance in form - 2A to such of the applicants covered under sub-rule (1). Provided that the grant of prior clearance shall not confer any right on the applicant for grant of licence in Form 2B. The holder shall not claim for any compensation or loss in case licence in form – 2B is not granted. (3) The holder of prior clearance in Form -2A may apply in form 1 B for grant of licence of a Bar to the concerned Prohibition and Excise Superintendent where the applicant’s premises is to be licensed. (4) Applicant in form – 1B shall be accompanied by challan of Rs.10,000/- towards non-refundable application fee. (5) The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, after making such enquiry as he may think necessary, to ascertain the bonafidies of the applicant and verifying the particulars furnished in the application should examine the suitability of the premises for granting Bar and forward the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise of the division along with his report (6) The Deputy Commissioner, after causing such enquiry as he may deem fit may grant the licence. (7) The applicant before issuing of the licence shall execute a counter-part agreement in form – 4B, on the stamp paper of requisite value as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 6. Restrictions on the grant of Licence:-- 1) A licence in form – 2B shall not be granted. (i). . (ii) Within 100 meters from educational institution recognized by the Government, places of public worship such as Temples registered by the Endowments Department, Mosques registered with the Wakf Board, Churches and Hospitals. (iii) Within 500 meters of predominantly residential area but licenses may however be sanctioned if the proposed premises is located on a main road used for shopping purposes. (iv) (v) (vi) Unless the applicant produces the lease deed on a Stamp paper for the proposed licenced premises from the owner of the premises. . . 15. The above provisions prescribed the procedure for processing the application for licence and the restrictions on the grant of licence. The main contention of the petitioners is that the present licence violates Rule 6(1)(ii), that the premises is within 100 meters of educational institution recognized by the Government, mosque, church and a temple and present premises where bar is permitted, is in a locality, which is earmarked for residential use and hence the enquiry under Section 5 of the Act, has not been properly conducted by the respondents. 16. In the counter affidavit filed by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, it is stated that that no Educational Institutions, Mosques and Churches are located in the restricted distance of 100 mts from the Bar premises. An Upper Primary School by name Crescent (E.M.) School is functioning in the area at Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada and the distance between the 2B Bar premises at Door No.42-7-7, Daba Kottula Centre, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada and the above school was measured by the Station House Officer, Vijayawqada – West Prohibition and Excise Station on 29.7.2009 before issue of 2B licence and found the distance is about 114 mts. Further there is a mosque by name Majid-e-Musthafa in the area and the distance was measured by the above station house officer and found the distance as 120 mts. from the proposed bar premises at Door No.42-7-7-. It is stated that there is a small Christian Prayer house by name God Witnesses A.G., Prayer House, located at a distance of 106 mts. and the Paster L.Kiran Kumar, who is maintaining the above prayer house informed that he is maintaining the prayer hall in his own house and it not linked up with any missionary organization and the small Brahmamgari Matham, which is located in the area, is not registered by the Endowments Department. In the counter filed by the Municipal Corporation also it is categorically stated that the school is located in the rear side street of the Bar and the temple and a church are located in a far of distance and that the church is not a full-fledged church, but a residence converted as a prayer place and that it has been thoroughly examined and only after obtaining no objection letters from the neighbours, the trade licence under Section 521 of HMC Act, has been granted to the petitioner. 17. A reading of the counter affidavits filed by the official respondents categorically show that the objections raised by the petitioners are considered and after satisfying with the same, permission has been granted. It is to be noticed that Rule 5 contemplates for procedure for processing the application for licence and as per the counter affidavit, the procedure has been followed. 18. The petitioners have disputed the authority of the Station House Officer is undertaking the job of measurement. Under sub rule 5 of Rule 5 of the Rules, before grant of licence, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, after making such enquiry, as he may think necessary with regard to the suitability of the premises for granting bar, forward the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition. In the present case, the Station House Officer of Excise Police Station, has undertaken the job of measuring the distance and submitted the report. In the counter affidavit it is stated that as per Rule 6, the distances referred above shall be measured from the mid-pointof the entrance of the proposed bar premises along with the nearest path by which pedestrian ordinarily reach to the mid point of the nearest path by which pedestrian ordinarily reaches to the main point of the nearest gate of the institution or place of public worship, if there is a compound wall and if there is no compound wall to the mid-point of the nearest entrance of the institution or place of Public worship or to the entrance of the first house of the predominantly residential area”. It is stated that during the enquiry it is found that the licensed premises is in conformity with Rule 6 of the Rules and therefore the licence was granted to the respondent no.4. Though the petitioners have disputed his authority of the Station House Officer of the Excise Police Station, has not furnished any document issued by the competent authority, contradicting the measurements. Further, this court while allowing the vacate petition in WVMP.NOS.2657 OF 2009, WP.NO.16659/2009 and WPMP.NO.23205/2009 in WP.NO.17698/2009 dated 22.9.2009, has taken judicial notice of this fact and at paragraph no.10 of the order, observed as under: “From the map produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise, it is clear that the distance between the shop and the school is more than 100 meters and further the bar isnot at all visible to the school. From the said map, it appears that in between the school and the proposed bar there are two lanes. It also reveals from a glaring look at the said mp that though it is a residential area, hectic commercial activity is going on. In the entire area on both sides of the proposed bar cum restaurant by the fourth respondent there are so many shops. Mr. Subhani says that his client is neighbour to the proposed bar and restaurant. But the ground position, as visualized from the map produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is different as ther are shops on both sides of the said proposed bar. . .” 19. Under Rule 6(1)(iii) within 500 meters of predominantly residential area, the licence cannot be granted, but however, the licence may be sanctioned if the proposed premises is located on a main road used for shopping purposes. In the present case as per the counter affidavits of the official respondents, it is clear that the area in question is having number of business establishments mixed with residential house and it is a commercial area as well. It is further stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Excise Superintendent, as per the File No.10302/73/H4 of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, the road on which the 2B licence granted is 50 feet road and it is a main road used for shopping purposes and number of shops with various kinds of businesses are functioning on the said road. Further, the petitioners were given opportunity and after considering the facts and circumstances, the licence was granted and the objections raised by the petitioners are not tenable. 20. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the law laid down in the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and they are dismissed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, stands closed. AVS ----------------------------- - 06—02—2013 [1] 2009(3) ALD 321 (DB) [2] 2008(4)ALD 188 [3] CDJ 2012 BHC 1718 [4] 2011(4) CTC 843 [5] CDJ 2008 Kar HC 383. [6] AIR 2006 SC 1987 [7] (2010)14 SCC 557 [8] 2007(5) ALD 203 (DB) [9] (2012)2 SCC 232 [10] 2005(3) ALT 536 [11] (2004)13 SCC 665 [12] AIR 1971 SC 33 [13] AIR 1961 SC 1506 [14] (2003)2 SCC 107 "