BELLAPU NAGESWAR RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Bellapu Nageswar Rao, the petitioner, has filed this public interest litigation case in person seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare G.O. Ms. No. 390 dt. 18.6.2012, insofar as not providing reservation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes candidates and collection of fixed licence fee proposed, based on population, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15(2)(a), 16(2), and 19(1)(g) and 19(6) of the Constitution of India, and to direct the respondents to follow the Rule of Reservation as per the Constitution. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner is questioning the policy of the Government for the excise year 2012-2013 for disposal of retail liquor outlets on the ground that the people belonging to Scheduled Casts and Backward Classes are not provided reservation. In support of his case, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, 1954 AIR(SC) 220 It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, instead of following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, issued the impugned G.O. In this regard, the petitioner statedly made representations to Government complaining that the collection of licence fee is illegal and against the Constitution of India and requesting to make the reservation to all groups of communities (A, B, C, D. groups in BCs; S.Cs, STs and Toddy Tapers Societies) in selection and appointment of liquor retail and outlet dealerships, in vain. It is further stated that the privilege of selling liquor through retail shops by collecting fixed licence fee based on population of various places where the shops are proposed to be established is also illegal, and grant of licences should be made free on application, like the Gas Agencies, Petrol Bunks and Civil Supply dealership based on reservation. The petitioner specifically stated that he is not opposing the lottery system in selecting the wine shop dealers, but he questions the action of the Government in not providing for reservation in the lottery system.

(2.) Initially we have cautioned the petitioner that under Rule 7-A (b)(vii) of the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977, that if the Court comes to the conclusion that this public interest litigation is motivated by any extraneous and/or ulterior motives or without bona fides, it shall be open to the Court to impose exemplary costs and/or compensatory damages upon the petitioner. However, he chose to argue the matter. As required under Rule 7-A(b)(i) of the Writ Proceedings Rules, the petitioner in his affidavit stated that he undertakes to pay exemplary costs and/or compensatory damages as directed by this Court in the event of a contrary finding upon adjudication by the Hon'ble Court that the writ petition is filed for extraneous/personal considerations or with an oblique motive.

(3.) We have heard the petitioner/party-in-person and the learned Advocate General for the State.