THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.25062 of 2011 Dated 19th December, 2011 Between: Smt.Sama Uma Lakshmikantham …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary for (Revenue) Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.S.Prasaad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri M.S.Prasaad, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner claims to be in possession of premises bearing D.Nos.6/665 and 6/666 of Kojjellipet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. She claims to be the holder of an agreement of sale from the original owner of the premises and in pursuance thereof, she has been in possession of the said property. When one Lingam Anand Kumar, the brother and lessor of respondent No.4, sought to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, she filed O.S.No.138 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short ‘the civil Court’) for permanent injunction. She also filed I.A.No.516 of 2011 seeking temporary injunction against the said Lingam Anand Kumar. The civil Court granted ad interim injunction. When respondent No.4 applied for permission to use the above- mentioned premises as godowns on the ground that he has taken the said premises on lease from his brother Lingam Anand Kumar, the petitioner filed objections before respondent No.2, wherein while claiming right and possession over the said premises, she has informed respondent No.2 about the subsistence of injunction order against the purported lessor of respondent No.4. Respondent No.2 initially granted an order in May, 2011 granting permission from 24.05.2011 to 24.07.2011 and also passed another order, dated 14.07.2011, justifying his earlier order granting permission to respondent No.4 for using the premises as godowns for storing liquor. Assailing these two orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that by proceedings in Rc.No.334/2010/A2, dated 01.07.2011, respondent No.2 has extended permission from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2012. Curiously, the order, dated 14.07.2011, did not contain any reference of order, dated 01.07.2011. The order, dated 01.07.2011, is not before the Court and the same is also not questioned by the petitioner. Be that as it may, a perusal of the order, dated 14.07.2011, would reveal that respondent No.2 has failed to consider the effect of injunction suffered by Lingam Anand Kumar. Respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the document of title held by the said Lingam Anand Kumar while holding that he is the owner of the said premises and he has also placed reliance on the lease deed executed by Lingam Anand Kumar in favour of respondent No.4. Respondent No.2 ought to have considered the order of injunction suffered by Lingam Anand Kumar while considering the application of respondent No.4 for grant of permission. Such a consideration is conspicuously absent in the impugned order. I therefore find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two orders suffer from material illegality warranting interference with the same. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned orders, dated 24.05.2011 and 14.07.2011, are set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the petitioner’s objections and pass a fresh order in the light of the injunction order of the civil Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before passing a fresh order, respondent No.2 shall issue notices to both the parties and give them an opportunity of being heard. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30825 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th December, 2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB