IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15129 of 2009 Between: U.Pulla Reddy S/o. Nagi Reddy R/o. 5-358, Trunk road, Kadapa Town. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principla Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Excise Superintendent, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 4 The Municipal Corporation of Kadapa, Rep. by its Commissioner, Kadapa. 5 Sri. Siva Restaurant & Bar ( A Proprietary, Concern ) Rep. by its Proprietor, P.Yella Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, 5-260, Anjaneya Swamivari Temple Street, Trunk Road, Kadapa. 6 Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chittoor. (Impleaded as per Court Order dated 28-07-2009) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued vide Cr.No. 5/2009/CPE/T1, dated 22.07.2009, as illegal and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to permit the 5th respondent to establish / run a bar at premises bearing D.No. 5/260, 261, 264, 264/1, Kottagada Street, Anjaneya Seamy Temple Street, Kadapa Town Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Roy Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6: Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri S.I. Newton The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The petitioner is permitted to join the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chittoor as respondent No.6. 2. This is a public interest litigation, wherein the petitioner apprehends that respondent No.5 might be granted licence to run bar and restaurant in violation of the relevant rules. 3. In our opinion, the petition is premature for the reason that till today, respondent No. 5 has not been granted any licence to run the bar and restaurant. 4. Looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that it would be open to the petitioner to file his objections before respondent No.6 so that before taking final decision with regard to grant of licence or otherwise, respondent No.6 can consider the objections which might be filed by the petitioner. 5. In view of this direction, the petition stands disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th July, 2009 ks