A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who obtained IL-24 licence for sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor at vemulavada village in premises bearing d. No. 3-1-129 made an application on 3-2-2003 for shifting of his IL-24 shop from premises bearing D. No. 3-1-129 of vemulavada town to D. No. 1-5-11 of the same town stating that there is no facility in the existing shop to avail permit room (IL-24- belicence) and requested to shift to the proposed premises for obtaining IL-24-B licence. SDP and EO after due enquiry into the matter reported that the proposed premises is in conformity with Rule 6 of A. P. Excise (Indian and Foreign Liquor Retail Sale conditions of Licences) Rules, 1993 (for short "the Rules" ). Accordingly, the proposal was submitted to the second respondent, who is competent authority to accord permission for shifting of shop. The second respondent through his proceedings dt. Cr. No. 4788/2003/cpe/g4 dt. 4-4-2003 has accorded permission for shifting of IL-24- shop, in view of the petitioner willing to obtain IL-24-B (permit room) licence, as there is no provision at the present premises. As Licence granted for the year 2002-2003 has come to an end by 31st March, 2003, the petitioner made an application for renewal of licence before its expiry by complying with all necessary formalities. The same was renewed on petitioner furnishing bank guarantee of 2/3rd of annual licence fee on 15-4-2003. After obtaining permission for shifting the licence, and when he is about to shift the same, the fifth respondent filed an objection petition before the Commissioner on 15-4-2003 stating that proposed premises selected by the petitioner is within the prohibited distance of 93. 4 metres from raja Rajeswari Temple as per Rule 6 of the rules. On forwarding the said objections to the third respondent to enquire personally and submit a report, he submitted his report. Basing upon the report of the third respondent and as per orders of the High court in W. P. No. 6592/2003 dt. 15-4-2003 directing the second respondent to consider the representation, the Commissioner by providing an opportunity to the fifth respondent as well as the petitioner on 6-5-2003 passed orders dated 7-5-2003 observing that the proposed premises is less than 50 metres distance from the existing shop of the fifth respondent and accordingly permission granted earlier on 4-4-2003 to shift the shop was withdrawn. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the distance which was in force under Rule 29 (5) of A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 was omitted by Government through G. O. Ms. No. 190, revenue (Ex. lll), dt. 24-3-1998. In view of the same, any circular issued by the second respondent is contrary to the intention of the legislature and no distance restriction should be placed for granting IL-24 licence. He further contends that once report submitted by the third respondent clearly shows that the proposed premises is beyond 107-30 metres from the Raja Rajeswari temple, withdrawing the permission on different ground is arbitrary and illegal and same is in violation of principles of Natural justice. In the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner dt. 2-4-2003 suspending the earlier circulars and imposing 50 metres distance restriction to be maintained uniformly from shop to shop, shop to a bar and bar to bar is without jurisdiction. In the absence of any rule prohibiting such grant of licence, Commissioner cannot impose a ban for granting IL 24-B licence. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned government Pleader for Excise contends that under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of a. P. Excise Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") it is competent for the Commissioner to exercise all powers as he being the Chief controlling Authority in all matters of concern with the administration of this Act. In view of the same, circular memo issued by the commissioner is only to effectuate licences to be granted under the Act. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the fifth respondent while adopting the arguments of the learned Government Pleader for Excise contended that it is for the Commissioner to issue such circulars when the rules are silent. ( 5 ) THIS court in K. Ramulu v. Dy. Commissioner of Excise held that the commissioner of Abkari can issue directions to his subordinates by placing restriction on entry into auction in exercise of powers under Section 3 (1) (a) of A. P. (Telangana area) Abkari Act (1 of 1316-F) and it is not irrational. ( 5 ) THIS court in K. Ramulu v. Dy. Commissioner of Excise held that the commissioner of Abkari can issue directions to his subordinates by placing restriction on entry into auction in exercise of powers under Section 3 (1) (a) of A. P. (Telangana area) Abkari Act (1 of 1316-F) and it is not irrational. Even though the Rules framed under the Act do not specifically say that a defaulter is not entitled to a hall ticket yet the power conferred on the auctioning authority to cancel the bid of a person who is in arrear, carries with it the power to stop such a defaulter even from bidding. ( 6 ) THIS court in Superintendent of Excise v. Beesanna Goud while considering the validity of circulars issued by the Excise commissioner who is constituted as Chief controlling Authority under Sec. 3 (1) of the act vis-a-vis A. P. Foreign Liquor and Indian liquor Rules, 1970 held as follows:". . . . . . . THESE rules prevail not merely because they are statutory but become under Section 3 (1) of the Act, the excise Commissioner is made the chief Controlling Authority in regard to all matters connected with the administration of the Act, subject to the general or special orders of the government in his behalf. The general order of the Government in the absence of any rules could have been an administrative order. But the government itself has chosen to frame statutory rules in exercise of the powers vested in it under Sec. 72 of the act, to regulate the grant of licences. As the Excise Commissioner is constituted as the Chief Controlling authority under Sec. 3 (1) subject to the general or special orders of the government, when the Government has chosen to frame statutory rules, any power that the Commissioner may choose to exercise as the Chief controlling authority, must be exercised subservient to these rules. No instructions or circulars issued in exercise of this power under Sec. 3 (1) of the Act can over-ride the statutory rules framed by the Government which itself is the authority subject to which the Chief Controlling authority has to function. . . . . . . . " (para 9) even on general principles, an administrative instruction issued by an authority constituted under the Act as the Chief Controlling Authority, cannot over-ride the statutory rules. . . . . . . . " (para 9) even on general principles, an administrative instruction issued by an authority constituted under the Act as the Chief Controlling Authority, cannot over-ride the statutory rules. Such administrative instruction can only operate in a filed where the statutory rules are silent. Or they may serve only as guideline to the statutory authorities in matters not expressly covered by the rules. If they travel beyond that limit they, would be ultra vires of the Act and the Rules. (Para 10) ( 7 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Toddy tappers Co-operative Society, Kored v. Superintendent of Excise and others held that Commissioner had power only to issue administrative instructions consistent with the provisions of the statute to sub-serve the purpose to fill in the "yarning gaps". In the implementation of or working of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, he has no power to issue instructions "to supplant" the statutory provisions and the rules made thereunder or the conditions of the licence. ( 8 ) IN view of the ratio of the above cited decisions, the Commissioner can issue circulars only for implementation of the legislative intent/policy as indicated in the statutory rules, which will govern grant of licences. Legislature in its wisdom imposed distance restriction rule earlier under subrule (5) of Rule 29 of the A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970, which was omitted through G. O. Ms. No. 190, Revenue (Excise. Ill), dt. 24/03/1998. Through g. O. Ms. No. 151 dt. 30-3-2002 sub rule (4) was added to Rule 29 stating that no licence shall be granted in Form-IL-24-B unless the applicant is a holder of IL-24 (retail) licence, for which IL-24-B licence is sought for is located in a place whose population is more than 10000; premises having plinth area of minimum 10 sq. mts with the facilities of sanitary such as wash basin, water closet and drinking water and the premises is at 100 metres away from the places of Public worship, Educational Institutions and hospitals. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the present case, the petitioner sought shifting of licence to have il-24-B licence at the place proposed, which was granted by the Commissioner earlier through his order dt. 4-4-2003. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the present case, the petitioner sought shifting of licence to have il-24-B licence at the place proposed, which was granted by the Commissioner earlier through his order dt. 4-4-2003. When the fifth respondent made an objection that such a permission cannot be granted since it is within 100 metres from the place of worship, a report was called for from the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent who submitted a report that proposed premises is beyond 100 metres. On receipt of the report, commissioner provided an opportunity to the fifth respondent and the petitioner and withdrew his earlier orders dt. 4-4-2003 on the ground that the shifting of premises is within 50 metres from the shop of the fifth respondent, which was not the objection raised by the fifth respondent initially. ( 10 ) BE that as it may, the Legislature itself omitted the distance rule, which was imposed earlier, which shows that the legislature do not want to impose such a restriction for granting IL-24 licence or il-24-B licence. Only restriction imposed for granting IL-24-B licence is that the premises is atleast 100 metres away from the places of Public Worship, Educational Institutions and Hospitals. But there is no other restriction imposed for granting IL-24 licence. In view of the same, circular memo issued by the Commissioner imposing distance rule, if any, is contrary to Rule 29 (4) of the A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor rules, 1970 and will not come in the way of the petitioner shifting his IL-24 licence to the new premises for enabling him to have il-24-B licence. In view of the same, impugned order passed by the commissioner dt. 7-5-2003 is set-aside. Since the petitioner is already renewed his licence and is permitted to shift on condition that he should obtain IL-24-B (permit room) licence, the respondents are hereby directed to permit the petitioner to shift his premises from D. No. 3-1-129 to D. No. 1-5-11 of vemulavada Town as was granted subject to his fulfilling conditions for obtaining il-24-B licence. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.