ORDER Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. The petitioner sought for a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the notification dated 11.07.2014 issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Anantapur, insofar as relocating the Shop bearing Gazette Serial No. 84, Rayadurg Municipality at B.K. Samudram Mandal, Singanamala Excise Station, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was granted a license for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Liquor, known as A-4 License, in respect of Shop No. 124, B.K. Samudram Mandal, Anantapur Municipal Corporation, 5 kms. belt area limits for the current year 2014-15. It is the further case of the petitioner that only three shops were initially notified for B.K. Samudram Mandal and they are notified at Serial Nos. 124, 125 and 130 of the Gazette. The license fee fixed for Shop Nos. 124 and 125 is ` 45.00 lakhs per annum, for Shop No. 130 it was ` 32.50 lakhs per annum. By virtue of the license granted, the petitioner is operating a retail sale vend notified at Serial No. 124 in terms and in accordance with the conditions contained in the license. It is the contention of the petitioner that, as per Rule 4 of A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012, henceforth referred to as 'Shop Rules'; the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise having due regard to the requirement, public order, health, safety and other factors as he thinks fit, may fix the total number of shops to be established in an area/locality before the publication of notification under Rule 5 and may relocate any undisposed shops from any area/locality as he thinks fit. Since the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise has decided and fixed three number of shops to be established at B.K. Samudram and accordingly published the notification as per Rule 5 of the Shop Rules, no further addition to this number is authorized. It is the further case of the petitioner that, as per Sub-clause (9) of Rule 16 of Shop Rules, a privilege fee at 8% on the turn-over of sales will have to be paid, provided the turn-over of sales has exceeded 7 times the annual license fee. Therefore, as a policy, unless sales turn-over of more than 7 times the license fee is recorded, addition of one more shop to the area/locality should not be authorized. Therefore, as a policy, unless sales turn-over of more than 7 times the license fee is recorded, addition of one more shop to the area/locality should not be authorized. Whereas, the Excise Superintendent, Anantapur, through the impugned notification has proposed to relocate Shop at Serial No. 84 of the first Gazette notification which is originally intended to be established at Rayadurg Municipality, Municipal Election Ward No. 10 within the Municipal Limits of Anantapur, within the 5 kms belt area near at the Collectorate Anantapur now. Consequently, the total number of shops in B.K. Samudram Mandal increased to 4 from 3 and this is impermissible. Further, the sales statistics maintained by the A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited, IML Depot, Anantapur, clearly bring out that the sales turn-over of the retailers in B.K. Samudram Mandal for the previous Excise Year 2013-2014 has not crossed 7 times the annual license fee. Therefore, relocation of Rayadurgam Shop to B.K. Samudram Mandal is grossly illegal. It is also contended that there are several other areas and localities in Anantapur District where the annual sales/turn-over have exceeded 7 times the license fee and therefore it is in such areas, the relocation of Rayadurgam Shop should have been ordered. 2. The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Anantapur filed a detailed counter affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit, it is contended that what Rule 16(9) of the Shop Rules contemplates is levy of privilege fee together with Value Added Tax thereon, whenever the annual sales turn-over of any licensee exceeds 7 times. Such a stipulation is not a guiding factor for purposes of ordering relocation of undisposed shops. It is further contended that, the shop which is originally notified for Rayadurgam Municipality remained undisposed even during the second round of call. Therefore, the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise thought it appropriate to relocate it near the Collectorate Anantapur and on that basis, the third round notification was issued. It is further contended that Shop No. 124 of B.K. Samudram Mandal is now located within the 5 kms belt area limits of Municipal Corporation of Anantapur. Hence, the writ petitioner instead of establishing the shop near Collectorate, has preferred to locate his shop at B.K. Samudram Headquarters. Similarly, the licensee of Shop No. 125 also preferred to establish his shop at B.K. Samudram Headquarters falling with in the 5 Kms belt area of Ananthapur. Hence, the writ petitioner instead of establishing the shop near Collectorate, has preferred to locate his shop at B.K. Samudram Headquarters. Similarly, the licensee of Shop No. 125 also preferred to establish his shop at B.K. Samudram Headquarters falling with in the 5 Kms belt area of Ananthapur. The counter affidavit in paragraph 4 has disclosed the off-take particulars by the three licensees of B.K. Samudram for the Excise Year 2013-2014. Further, in paragraph 8, it is set out that the consumption potential of a locality or an area and the convenience of the public and simultaneously to ensure that the potential consumers do not fall prey to adulterated intoxicants, all on account of non-availability of licensed shop and further, to ensure that the government does not suffer loss of revenue are all factors which weighed in the matter of relocation of the undisposed Rayadurgam shop to near Collectorate, Anantapur. It was further pointed out in the counter affidavit that the distance between the shop of the writ petitioner and the present proposed location near Collectorate is more than 3 kms. It is therefore contended that there is no infirmity whatsoever in ordering for relocation of the shop. These very contentions are reiterated by the fifth respondent as well. 3. Heard Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise and Sri Nitesh on behalf of the fifth respondent. 4. It is contended by Sri Kamalakar that unless a retail shopkeeper indulges in trade turn-over which exceeds 7 times the license fee, he will not be achieving the minimum profit. That is the reason why as a rule of policy, new shops are allowed to be added to such area/locality where the sales turn-over has crossed 7 times. Further, the spirit behind Rule 16(9) clearly indicates that only when the sales turn-over exceeds 7 times the license fee, in such locality/area alone relocation of shop can be ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea has also placed reliance upon the Judgment rendered by my learned Brother Justice Ramesh Ranganathan in B. Venkateswarlu and others v. Government of A.P. and others 2014 (5) ALT 506 : 2014 (2) ALT (Crl.) 340 (A.P.) : 2014 Lawsuit (AP) 159. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea has also placed reliance upon the Judgment rendered by my learned Brother Justice Ramesh Ranganathan in B. Venkateswarlu and others v. Government of A.P. and others 2014 (5) ALT 506 : 2014 (2) ALT (Crl.) 340 (A.P.) : 2014 Lawsuit (AP) 159. 5. The all important question raised in this writ petition can be decided based upon the sweep and cover of Rule 4 of the Shop Rules, which reads as under: "4. Establishment of shops:- Subject to such direction, which the Government may issue in this regard from time to time, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, having due regard to the requirement, public order, health, safety and other factors as he thinks fit, may fix the number of shops to be established in an area/locality before the publication of notification under Rule 5 and may relocate any undisposed shops from any area/locality as he thinks fit." 6. Rule 4 clearly discloses that, subject to the overall guidance or directions of the Government, the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise may fix the number of shops to be established in an area/locality before publishing the notification under Rule 5. However, the rule stipulates clearly that, for arriving at a just decision the Commissioner will have due regard to the requirement, public order, health, safety and other factors and then decide the total number of shops to be established in a particular area/locality. This is a very salutary guidance. The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise may not fix the total number of shops to be established in an area/locality irrationally. The Commissioner may not get guided in this exercise solely by consideration of revenue generation. He has to take into account and consideration the potential consumption element of the locality, the public order, health and safety and other factors as he thinks fit. The guidance this rule offers is clear enough. Before taking a call relating to a densely populated locality, where mostly working classes reside, the Commissioner will naturally take into account the public order, health and safety factors before authorizing establishment of retail shops there in such locality. In general, the potential consumption requirement of the locality is the guiding principle. The guidance this rule offers is clear enough. Before taking a call relating to a densely populated locality, where mostly working classes reside, the Commissioner will naturally take into account the public order, health and safety factors before authorizing establishment of retail shops there in such locality. In general, the potential consumption requirement of the locality is the guiding principle. When it comes to the question of safety, it is also important for the Commissioner to ensure that the potential consumers in a locality do not get tapped by spurious and adulterated intoxicants, only for want of authorized retail vend of liquor in that locality. Retraction from illicit booze is certainly a factor which has its bearing in public order, health and safety factors. 7. Prior to issuance of the notification under Rule 5, the Commissioner, in the present case, may have genuinely and legitimately expected that a license for a A-4 Shop at Rayadurgam would be picked up. But contrary to his expectations, the shop remained undisposed in the first two rounds. Therefore, he has now authorized its relocation from Rayadurgam to near Collectorate, Anantapur. The later part of Rule 4 of the Shop Rules clearly authorized the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise to relocate any such undisposed shops from any area/locality as he thinks fit, though, the guidelines provided in the first part of Rule 4 while deciding the number of shops to be established are omitted in the later part of Rule 4. But nonetheless, it is safe to assume that the same considerations can also guide and weigh on the mind of Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise before ordering for relocation of the undisposed shops. In my opinion, relocation of undisposed shops is a completely independent exercise from the exercise of determination of the total number of shops in a locality/area and the only constraint, if I may say so, is to ensure that a total number of shops fixed by him prior to issuance of the first notification under Rule 5 may not get enlarged. In the process of relocation, the total number of shops authorized to be established at the first instance by the Commissioner will never get altered. They remain to be the same. In the process of relocation, the total number of shops authorized to be established at the first instance by the Commissioner will never get altered. They remain to be the same. Out of the total number of shops fixed by him, if some shops remain undisposed, the prospects of their relocation would never result in increasing or swelling of the total number of authorized shops. Therefore, the exercise of relocation of undisposed shops is a totally independent exercise and as the counter affidavit makes out, it was ordered keeping an eye on the potential consumption requirements near the Collectorate area of Anantapur limits. 8. What Rule 16(9) of the Shop Rules sets out is a privilege fee payable at 8% together with Value Added Tax becomes chargeable once an A-4 Shop Licensee exceeds his annual turn-over of 7 times the license fee. That is a contingency. The liability to pay the privilege fee would occasion only upon the contingency of the licensee exceeding the sales turn over of 7 times the license fee, but not otherwise. Further, such a contingency might develop during the course of currency of A-4 license period, but, it might seldom arise at the very inception time of the license. Therefore, in my opinion, Rule 16(9) of the Shop Rules does not offer any guidance for regulating the exercise contained in the later part of Rule 4 of the Shop Rules, relating to relocation of undisposed shops. Further, I have not noticed that this Court has held in "B. Venkateswarlu and others vs. Government of A.P. and others (referred to supra)" that only where sales turnover exceeds 7 times the license fee, then only relocation of undisposed shop is permissible. 9. I am therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner cannot raise any legitimate objection to the decision of the Commissioner for relocating the undisposed shop from Rayadurgam Municipal Area near to Collectorate of Anantapur Limits. It is all the more so when there is no fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner to carry on business in intoxicants. 10. I am also convinced that the distance of more than 3 kms. between the locality where the petitioner has established his shop and the proposed shop now also works against the equities if any to be taken into consideration. 11. 10. I am also convinced that the distance of more than 3 kms. between the locality where the petitioner has established his shop and the proposed shop now also works against the equities if any to be taken into consideration. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence it is dismissed, but however, without costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications if any shall stand dismissed. Application dismissed