IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos.1250 and 1266 of 2009 Writ Appeal No.1250 of 2009 Between: Shaik Mastan Vali ...Appellant And K. Rama Rao and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri S. M. Subhani Counsel for respondent No.1 : None Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Govt. Pleader for Prohibition & Excise Writ Appeal No.1266 of 2009 Between: M. Lurdu Raju and others. ...Appellants And The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise , Hydeabad and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Sri B.V.S. Sivaram Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Govt. Pleader for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent No.4 : None The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1) These appeals are directed against a common order dated 22nd September, 2009 passed in WVMP.No.2657 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.16659 of 2009 and WPMP. No.23205 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.17698 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge vacated the ad interim order of status quo. 2) In these appeals, the question involved is whether K. Rama Rao, son of K. Atchaiah, who has been permitted to run a bar and restaurant at Door No.42-7-7, Daba Kotla Centre, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, is entitled to run the bar and restaurant and whether the permit for running it, is legal and proper. 3) Writ Petition No.20606 of 2009, which has been filed as a public interest litigation and which relates to the same subject matter, has been directed to be listed before the learned Single Judge taking up such cases. 4) Looking to the facts of the cases, and more particularly in view of the fact that common questions of fact and law are involved in all the three petitions, we think it proper that the learned Single Judge should decide the three petitions, especially when it has been submitted by the learned Advocates that counter affidavits have been filed in all the three cases. At this stage, we do not think it proper to set aside the order impugned in these appeals. 5) In the circumstances, it is directed that the writ petitions be placed before the learned Single Judge taking up such cases in the first week of December, 2009 so that they can be finally heard. 6) Subject to the above observations, the appeals are rejected with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 11th November, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. ARS