Potnuru Nageswara Rao, vs THE STATE OF AP Advocate - GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE — WP/4776/2019

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED NO COSTS on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 04-Apr-2019

CNR: APHC010106262019

Filing Number

WP/7664/2019

Filing Date

03-Apr-2019

Registration No

WP/4776/2019

Registration Date

03-Apr-2019

Judge

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

Coram

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

EXCISE (MISC.MATTERS) ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED NO COSTS

Last updated 28-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Potnuru Nageswara Rao,

    Adv. V SUDHAKAR REDDY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF AP Advocate - GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE

  2. 2.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

    Adv. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE (AP)

  3. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (FAC),

    Adv. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE (AP)

  4. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

    Adv. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE (AP)

  5. 5.The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent

    Adv. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE (AP)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Tarlada Rajasekhar RaoView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petition filed by a bar licensee challenging the seizure of 215 cases of IMFL and 137 cases of beer, and a two-month license suspension order. The court held that the licensee violated excise regulations by storing liquor in the restaurant area instead of the designated stockroom (measuring 13.40×0.80 meters) shown in the approved blueprint, and that "licensed premises" is defined by the blueprint plan, not the entire building. However, the court directed that no additional amount beyond the 50% deposit already made be recovered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    For Orders

    Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

  4. 31-Mar-2026

    Tarlada Rajasekhar RaoView PDF

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    For Orders

    Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Tarlada Rajasekhar RaoView PDF

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Tarlada Rajasekhar RaoView PDF

  8. 27-Jul-2023

    Interlocutory

    Ninala Jayasurya

  9. 23-Jun-2023

    For Hearing

    Ninala Jayasurya

  10. 31-Jan-2023

    Interlocutory (Prob. & Excise)

    D Ramesh

  11. 18-Jan-2023

    Interlocutory (Prob. & Excise)

    D Ramesh

  12. 08-Dec-2022

    Interlocutory (Prob. & Excise)

    D Ramesh

  13. 07-Dec-2022

    Interlocutory (Prob. & Excise)

    D Ramesh

  14. 21-Nov-2022

    Interlocutory (Prob. & Excise)

    D Ramesh

  15. 08-Nov-2022

    Interlocutory (Prob. & Excise)

    D Ramesh

  16. 12-Mar-2021

    Interlocutory (Prob. & Excise)

    D Ramesh

  17. 01-Oct-2019

    For Admission(stay Vacate Petitions)

    M.seetharama Murti

  18. 17-Sep-2019

    For Admission(stay Vacate Petitions)

    M.seetharama Murti

  19. 06-Sep-2019

    For Admission(stay Vacate Petitions)

    M.seetharama Murti

  20. 30-Aug-2019

    For Admission(stay Vacate Petitions)

    M.seetharama Murti

  21. 23-Jul-2019

    For Admissions

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  22. 04-Jul-2019

    For Admission

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  23. 28-Jun-2019

    For Admission

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  24. 27-Jun-2019

    For Admission

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  25. 26-Jun-2019

    For Admission

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  26. 25-Jun-2019

    Admission (Excise)

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  27. 20-Jun-2019

    Admission (Excise)

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  28. 19-Jun-2019

    Admission (Excise)

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  29. 18-Jun-2019

    Admission (Excise)

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  30. 17-Jun-2019

    Admission (Excise)

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  31. 14-Jun-2019

    Admission (Excise)

    U.durga Prasad Rao

  32. 04-Apr-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 03-Apr-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/4776/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petition filed by a bar licensee challenging the seizure of 215 cases of IMFL and 137 cases of beer, and a two-month license suspension order. The court held that the licensee violated excise regulations by storing liquor in the restaurant area instead of the designated stockroom (measuring 13.40×0.80 meters) shown in the approved blueprint, and that "licensed premises" is defined by the blueprint plan, not the entire building. However, the court directed that no additional amount beyond the 50% deposit already made be recovered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case