ORDER: The petitioner is a club, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, under the name and style of M/s Neni-Hitech Club Private Limited. It is stated that the club is an association of persons, established in the year 1999 for promoting sports, cultural activities and providing recreational facilities to its members. In the club, there are about 1000 members, who are from different walks of life belonging to various professions. It is stated that the club is involved in various activities. The club members are interested in relaxing in the club premises with their families and are carrying liquor purchased by them from IL-17 licensed shop and consuming the same within the premises of the club. It is the case of the petitioners that the members of the club purchased the liquor from IL-17 licensed shop, situated in the premises bearing No.169, Lal Bangalow, near S.V.V.V.Sanskrit College, Old Airport Road, New Bowenpalli, Secunderabad, carrying the same to the club premises and consuming. It is stated that this action of the members of the club is interfered with by the Excise Officials on the ground that the club has no licence for consumption of liquor. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in restricting or interfering with the activities of the club for consumption of liquor by its members though purchased from the neighbouring IL-17 licensed shop and carried by them to the club premises, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The licence granted in Form IL-17 under Rule 23 (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules'), is a Bar Licence for the sale of all kinds of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Beer to be consumed on the premises of the Bar, which is also called 'On licence'. The licence granted in Form.IL-24 under Rule 23 (xiii) of the Rules is a Retail licence for the sale of all kinds of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor, but shall not allow consumption on the licensed premises, which is also called 'Off licence'. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been wrongly mentioned in the writ affidavit that the members of the club have been purchasing the liquor from 'IL-17', but, in fact, they are purchasing the liquor from 'IL-24'. 4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been wrongly mentioned in the writ affidavit that the members of the club have been purchasing the liquor from 'IL-17', but, in fact, they are purchasing the liquor from 'IL-24'. 4. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that according to the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the Rules made thereunder, a club intending to sell liquor to the members of the club to be consumed on the premises of the club shall obtain a licence in Form.IL-20 in accordance with Rule 23(vi) of the Rules. 6. The said Rules have been repealed and the corresponding rule i.e., licence is granted in Form C-1 under Rule 4(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by In-House and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to 'Rules 2005). In-house Club Licence in Form C-1 is defined under Rule 4(iii) of the Rules, 2005, which is as follows: "the holder of the licence in Form C-1 shall be permitted to sell Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor in glasses or pegs for consumption within the licensed premises of the club by the bona fide members but he shall not sell Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor for removing it out of the licensed premises of the club: Provided that the licence holder shall not purchase or stock Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor in bottles of sizes less than 750 ml, except beer". 7. It is stated that even grant of In-house Club Licence is subject to certain terms and conditions and for violation of any of the terms and conditions of the licence or the provisions of the said Rules, 2005 or the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, the same is liable for cancellation. 8. Learned Government Pleader submits that Under Section 2(10) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), 'place' includes an open place, a house, club, shed, enclosure, building, shop, tent, vessel, raft and vehicle. 8. Learned Government Pleader submits that Under Section 2(10) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), 'place' includes an open place, a house, club, shed, enclosure, building, shop, tent, vessel, raft and vehicle. Section 7 of the Act prohibits the selling, buying and consumption of liquor except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Section 8 of the Act provides punishment for buying, selling, consumption etc., according to which, whoever consumes any liquor except in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the terms of any rule, notification, order, licence or permit issued thereunder shall be punishable. Therefore, the members of the club are not entitled to purchase the liquor from outside the club and consume the same as if the club is a private house. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no prohibition either under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 or under the Act and that under the relevant rules, any person is entitled to bring and consume the liquor in his own house and also in the club. 10. Having considered the rival contentions urged by both the counsel, I am of the opinion that there are various types of licences, such as, 'On and Off licences. A perusal of "On licence' granted in respect of a club, bar or military canteen etc., goes to show that the licence is required to be taken in respect of the club and similar other specified place, whereas the licence is not required to consume the liquor in a private house. When the club is required to obtain a licence, I am of the opinion that the members of the club cannot use the club as a Bar for its consumption. As a matter of fact, even if the club has got a licence, the club is not entitled to purchase liquor in small quantity less than 750 ml, except beer. Therefore, there is a requirement to obtain a licence in respect of a club if the club members desire to consume the liquor in the premises of the club whether they purchased outside or from the club. Therefore, there is a requirement to obtain a licence in respect of a club if the club members desire to consume the liquor in the premises of the club whether they purchased outside or from the club. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the club members are entitled to purchase the liquor from either bar or retail licence holder outside the club premises and can consume the same along with their family members and friends in the club premises without possessing the required licence. If this reasoning is accepted, there cannot be any prohibition to consume the liquor anywhere. If the provisions of the Prohibition Act cannot be implemented and if the members of the club are permitted to consume the liquor in a club, many places will merge into a club, which virtually will be run as a bar. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in NIZAM CLUB, HYDERABAD v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST ZONE, HYDERABAD1, with regard to the requirement of obtaining a licence under the Hyderabad Police Act to take a Hence as the club is maintaining the eating house, wherein it was held that Nizam Club is not a public place of entertainment and the admission is restricted and public cannot enter into the club premises, but it is restricted to its members alone and therefore, the club is required to maintain as eating house and the said eating house is meant for its members alone and the food is not prepared or supplied or sold for consumption, for profit or gain of the club. Thus, it was held that the club need not obtain any licence as contemplated under Sections 2(15) and 521(1)(e)(ii) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and Sections 3(g) and 3(h) of the Hyderabad City Police Act contemplate only places where the public are admitted. 12. I am of the opinion that the said judgment have no application to the facts of this case as I have already opined that the club is required to obtain a licence though it is not a public place and the right of admission is restricted. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.