Judgment : The petitioner, who was the successful bidder for grant of license to sell Indian made foreign liquor and Foreign liquor at Pentapadu village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District for the current Excise year, which commenced on 01.07.2014, challenges the notice dated 13.08.2014 issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, West Godavari, Eluru requiring him to select an alternative premises for grant of regular license. The case of the petitioner is that after he emerged as successful bidder, he was granted provisional license on 01.07.2014 for the excise year 2014-15 to last up to 30.06.2015. He proposed to establish his A-4 licensed shop at the same premises where similar licensees were granted permission during the excise year 2012-13 and 2013-14. In view of the impugned notice required him to select another premises, he challenges the same in this writ petition. Heard Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Moola Vijay Bhaskar, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise (Government of Andhra Pradesh) for the respondents. It is contended by Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the premises selected by the writ petitioner is the same premises where the earlier licensees for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 have run their outlets of Indian made foreign liquor and Foreign liquor. Further, it is contended that when once the premises was found to be suitable for carrying on the business, there is no power that is left behind in the hands of excise officials to direct the petitioner to relocate his shop elsewhere in the village. It is further contended that the present premises is adjoining the main road in the village, therefore, in such a commercial area there could not have been any sudden objections raised for the petitioner to carry on his business. It is further contended that for extraneous reasons and political considerations, the hostility is shown towards the petitioner from carrying on his business at the present premises. It is further contended that the respondents without having any objective consideration for, have buckled under political pressure of the Honble Minister for Endowments and hence issued the impugned notice. It is further contended that for extraneous reasons and political considerations, the hostility is shown towards the petitioner from carrying on his business at the present premises. It is further contended that the respondents without having any objective consideration for, have buckled under political pressure of the Honble Minister for Endowments and hence issued the impugned notice. It is finally urged by Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that when once the suitability of the premises in accordance with the Rule 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of selling by shop and conditions of license) Rules, 2012 (henceforth for short referred to as Rules) is ascertained by the Excise department, no further power is retained in the hands of the prohibition and excise Superintendent requiring the petitioner to relocate his shop room elsewhere. The counter-affidavit filed by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, West Godavari, Eluru has disclosed that the objections for granting license for retail liquor vend at the very same premise where the petitioner has located his shop now, was in fact filed on 28.06.2014, earlier in point of time than the drawal of lots amongst the bidders has been taken up. It is, hence, pleaded that it is futile to contend that the objections for running the liquor vend are forthcoming because the writ petitioner has emerged as the successful bidder. The objections have been raised by the concerned citizens earlier in point of time to the petitioner emerging as a successful bidder for running the retail vend at Pentapadu village, it then emerges that the objections are not directed against the licensee, but they are directed against the licensed premises, which, is likely to be once again chosen for establishing the liquor vend during the excise year 2014-15. This apart, the objectors have clearly pointed out that because of the license that was granted in the previous years, students, womenfolk etc of the village had to face certain hardships. It is, with a view to avoid recurrence of any such hardships, the objectors have urged the departmental officials not to accord any permission for setting up the liquor vend at the central place of the village and instead they urged that the liquor vend may be allowed to be established at the fringes of the village instead of being located at the central place. The objections, therefore, raised by the concerned are clearly directed against the premises where the liquor vend was in operation even prior to the commencement of the excise year 2014-15. Therefore, no credence need be attached to the plea of the petitioner that because of his ending up as the successful bidder for the excise year 2014-15 objections have been raised. The objections having been raised earlier in point of time than drawal of lots amongst the bidders for the excise year 2014-15 knocks away the wind out of the sail of the petitioner in this regard. It is no doubt true that the local Gram Panchayat has convened the Gram Sabha on 02.07.2014 i.e. after the provisional license is granted in favour of the petitioner, but the Gram Sabha represents the views of the entire community. The Gram Sabha has resolved against the location of the liquor vend at the central place of the village, it has not objected to the liquor vend to be located on the fringes of the village. The objection raised by the Gram Sabha clearly reflected the anxiety of the community to avoid the particular hardships, which the community in general and womenfolk of the village in particular are facing at the hands of the customers of the liquor vend. It is appropriate to notice that the objectors are pointing out that there are several educational institutions in the vicinity, public utility offices such as banks, and importantly the drinking water tank of the Gram Panchayat is located very close-by to the liquor vend. It is, therefore, not unusual for womenfolk to keep making trips to the drinking water tank for fetching water therefrom. If, in that process, they were to pass-by a liquor vend, it would not be very difficult for one to visualize the kind of embarrassment, if not grave hardship, which they would be subjected to by the customers of the liquor vend. It is quite imaginable that a licensee may not have any control over the venomous glances which his customers would be throwing at the passers-by. It is the people, who are at the receiving end that would be facing the awkward moments and it is not always necessary that the hardships will have to be faced only in the form of an unwelcome contact or physical act or indecent utterances. It is the people, who are at the receiving end that would be facing the awkward moments and it is not always necessary that the hardships will have to be faced only in the form of an unwelcome contact or physical act or indecent utterances. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the complaint that the location of the liquor vend was causing hardship to the villagers cannot be brushed aside as baseless and unrealistic one. Similarly, existence of educational institutions and public utility offices such as banks and other government offices etc also add an angle of unsuitability to the location of a liquor vend. Rule 25 of the Rules reads thus: It is one thing to say that the educational institutions or temples or other places of worship and other public institutions are falling outside the limits specified under Rule 25 of the Rules, where it is set out that the selected premises shall be at least 100 meters away from the places of public worship, educational institutions, hospitals and 50 meters away from Highways. This distance restriction clearly puts an embargo on granting approval to a premises chosen by the licensee even though it may be otherwise suitable for carrying on the business operations of a liquor vend. In other words, notwithstanding the suitability of the premises, such a premises cannot be approved for grant of a A-4 license because of the nature of the restriction contained in Rule 25 of the Rules. Rule 25 clearly indicates the care that has got to be employed by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent before approving the premises selected by the applicant. The restriction contained in Rule 25 reflected a public policy of the need for maintaining minimum distance from certain institutions. The policy behind Rule 25 brings out clearly that all other premises, which attract the distance restriction are otherwise unsuitable for grant of approval by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent. This restriction is intended to ensure that no inconvenience and hardship is ever faced by those who gain ingress and aggress to the institutions referred to therein. There is no other rational principle which is aimed at to be achieved by this rule. This restriction is intended to ensure that no inconvenience and hardship is ever faced by those who gain ingress and aggress to the institutions referred to therein. There is no other rational principle which is aimed at to be achieved by this rule. Merely because a particular premises which does not fall within the restricted distance specifications contained in Rule 25 can be declared automatically as suitable for carrying on operations of a liquor vend is the question which has got to be answered in this case. Rule 31 of the Rules stipulated that the licensee shall transact business from 11.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. and consumption simultaneously in the permit room shall be allowed during the hours of business of A4 license. Viewed in this backdrop, if the villagers are finding it inconvenient to pass-by a liquor vend from 11.00 a.m. onwards, the objections raised by the Gram Sabha for location of the liquor vend cannot, but, be described as purely objective. Further, the liquor vend is a place which is liable to be visited by the prospective purchasers of the commodities sold therein. Therefore, unlike general merchandise vend, not all people need to visit the same. Rule 4, which granted the necessary power to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to fix the number of shops to be established in an area/locality before the publication of notification in this regard under Rule 5 clearly indicated the guidelines to be adopted and followed by the Commissioner in exercise of power by indicating that he must have due regard to the public order and safety apart from other factors as he thinks fit. It is, therefore, clear that public order and safety and similar factors have a role to play in the matter of fixation of the number of shops in a locality/area. Hence, such factors are also needed to be kept in view by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent while granting approval of suitability to the premises chosen by the licensee for establishing the liquor vend. May be, the premises chosen by the licensee may not attract the restrictions specified in Rule 25 and may be the premises is the same one chosen by the previous licensees. But, however, if objections based upon the public order and safety of residents of the locality are raised, the Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise should reconsider the approval earlier accorded by him. But, however, if objections based upon the public order and safety of residents of the locality are raised, the Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise should reconsider the approval earlier accorded by him. Power to grant approval order, as is too well known, vests in the same authority the power to recall or vary or modify the original grant (Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891). Therefore, there is not much merit in the contention that in the absence of any such power in the Rules, the Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise could not have asked the petitioner to scout for some other suitable premises in the village. I am, therefore, of the opinion that if public order and safety has played a role in prompting issuance of notice dated 13.08.2014 by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Eluru, the same need not be viewed with any disfavour. Above all, the villagers have only objected the petitioner to locate his liquor vend at a central place in the village. They have in fact suggested that he can select any other premises at the outskirts of the village. When there is no outright objection for the petitioner to carry on his business in the village as it is, the claim of the petitioner that for extraneous reasons and considerations the impugned notice has emanated can only be described as lacking in content. It is true that the Honble Minister for Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, seems to have required action to be taken by the Departmental officials in accordance with the rules for shifting of the licensed premises of the writ petitioner. The fact, however, remains that the Honble Minister represents the local assembly constituency. Thus, he being essentially a public representative and in that capacity he has invited the attention of the Prohibition and Excise departmental officials for initiating necessary action. Hence, the contention that for political considerations and expediency, the impugned notice emerged lacks credible basis. I, therefore, do not find any justifiable objection that can be raised by the petitioner and hence the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the petitioner shall be granted time till 31.10.2014 for selecting any other suitable premises in the village for shifting his retail liquor vend to the said premises. The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.