JUDGMENT R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner is a Bar and Restaurant which is located near apsara Circle, Nehru Nagar, Kadapa District. The 5th respondent-Restaurant & Bar, which was originally functioning at Chinna Chowk, Madras Road, Kadapa District, had been closed on account of non-payment of licence fee. Thereafter, the 5th respondent-Restaurant & Bar sought revival of the Bar licence and also sought permission for shifting to D.No.66/24, I.T.I. Circle, Municipal Corporation, Kadapa. This request was rejected and the petitioner had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.6932 of 2021. It is stated that this writ petition has been withdrawn and is presently not pending before this Court. 2. The 5th respondent- Restaurant & Bar again applied for permission to shifting to D.No.42/22-3, NGO colony, Madras Road, Kadapa town. This location is said to be in close proximity to the existing Bar and Restaurant of the petitioner. Having come to know of the proposed shifting of the 5th respondent, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent, who is the competent authority for according such permission, with certain objections. Thereafter, the petitioner also approached this Court by way of W.P.No.29990 of 2021 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner. This court by an order dated 20.12.2021 had directed the 1st respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner while disposing of the application of the 5th respondent. 3. Thereafter, the 1st respondent is said to have called for a report from the 2nd respondent. after receiving the said report, the 1st respondent issued proceedings in C.R.No.4433/2020/CPE/F2, dated 11.01.2022 granting permission for revival of the licence of the 5th respondent and also permission for shifting the premises as per the application of the 5th respondent. 4. This Court accepted the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 11.01.2022 would have to be set aside on the ground that there are no reasons given in the said order and allowed the writ petition setting aside the order dated 11.01.2022 and remanding it back to the 1st respondent, with a direction to the 1st respondent, to pass orders setting out appropriate reasons, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the order. 5. 5. Thereafter, the 1st respondent again passed an order in C.R.No.4433/2020/CPE/F2 dated 11.03.2021, granting permission to the 5th respondent, for shifting to Door No.42/22-3, NGO Colony situated at Madras Road, Kadapa. The said order has been impugned by the petitioner, by way of the present writ petition. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the said order does not contain any valid reasons as required under Rule 17(3) andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2017 and is not in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.1650 of 2022. The petitioner also contends that the shifting of the bar of the 5th respondent to a place which is in close proximity to the bar of the petitioner, without assigning any reasons, is clearly arbitrary and does not meet the requirements of valid reasons that need to be given under Rule 17(3) of the Rules. 7. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana learned senior counsel, appearing for M/s.Bharadwaj associates would contend that the present order suffers from the same vice as the earlier order dated 11.01.2022. He submits that except relying upon the report of the Nodal Prohibition and Excise Superintendant, Kadapa and the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool, the 1st respondent has not given any reasons for approve the transfer of the bar of the 5th respondent. He would submit that the 1st respondent is required to apply his mind to the issue before passing an order and that the 1st respondent cannot simply rely on the inputs of his subordinates in the department. 8. Sri P.Veera Reddy learned senior counsel, appearing for Ms.Sodum anvesha, learned counsel for the 5th respondent would submit that the order under challenge contains adequate reasons which meet the requirements of Rule 17(3) of the Rules. He would further submit that the petitioner, who is rival trader cannot raise any objections to the proposed shifting of the bar of the petitioner unless he can point out any statutory provision or rule which confers such a right on the petitioner. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana learned senior counsel further submits that there is no rule and the petitioner cannot raise such objections either before the 1st respondent or before this Court. 9. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana learned senior counsel further submits that there is no rule and the petitioner cannot raise such objections either before the 1st respondent or before this Court. 9. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for official respondents 1 to 4. 10. Rule 17(3) of the Rules, which regulates the shifting of bars from one location to another reads as follows: 'No shifting of the licensed premises shall ordinarily be permitted during the licence period from one location to another. However, shifting of the licenced premises may be considered by the Commissioner of Prohibition. & Excise for valid reasons within the same Nagar Panchayat, Municipality including its 2KM belt area from the periphery or Municipal Corporation including its 5KM belt area from the periphery, as the case may be, subject to payment of 1% of the non-refundable registration charge and license fee or Rs.25,000/-, whichever is higher, as shifting fee and on production of trade license granted by the local authority concerned.' This Rule requires the 1st respondent to give valid reasons before approving any such shifting. 11. In the present case, the 5th respondent sought shifting of his bar from the existing premises to the proposed premises on the ground that the landlord of the 5th respondent is not willing to extend the lease of the 5th respondent and in any event, he is taking steps to ensure that the 5th respondent cannot run his bar in the existing premises. The 5th respondent then sought shifting of his bar from the present premises to the new premises to D.No.42/22-3, NGO Colony. The 1st respondent considered this application in two parts. Firstly, he considered the necessity of the 5th respondent to shift out of the present premises and consequently, he considered the issue of whether the 5th respondent should be permitted to move to the proposed premises. The 1st respondent, while considering the first aspect, had taken into account the contention of the 5th respondent that his landlord in the present premises was raising various hurdles in the running of the bar and accepted that reason as sufficient and valid reasons for permitting the 5th respondent to move out of the present premises. The 1st respondent, while considering the first aspect, had taken into account the contention of the 5th respondent that his landlord in the present premises was raising various hurdles in the running of the bar and accepted that reason as sufficient and valid reasons for permitting the 5th respondent to move out of the present premises. On the question of shifting to the proposed premises, the 1st respondent took into account the reports given by the Excise Superintendant, Kadapa and the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Kurnool which stated that there was adequate patronage for a second bar in the area. He also took into account the observations of these two officers who stated that a rival bar owner cannot object to the shifting of any other bar into the area of the rival bar. The 1st respondent also appears to have taken into account the fact that there would be no revenue loss to the government on account of the shifting of the bar of the 5th respondent. 12. This Court is satisfied that reasons have been set out in the impugned order dated 11.03.2022 and as such, it cannot be said that there are no reasons, much less valid reasons set out in the order permitting the shifting of the bar of the 5th respondent. 13. In view of this finding of the Court, the contention of the petitioner that no reasons have been given in the order cannot be accepted. as the entire case of the petitioner is on the grounds of 'no reasons at all', the writ petition filed by the petitioner is without merits and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. as a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.