IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6924 of 2008 Between: B.Ramesh Goud S/o.Sattaiah R/o.H.No.101, B-Block, Santosh Apartments, Warangal, A-4 licence of M/s Telangana Wines, at H.No.16-8-4, Abbanikunta, Mills Colony, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Prohibition and Excise at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division at Warangal. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, at Warangal. 4 Smt.Sailaja W/o.Naveen Kumar C/o.Door No. 11-6-20, Mills Colony, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVINDER Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings, dated 19.03.2008 issued by respondent No.1 whereby he granted prior clearance under Rule 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’) to respondent No.4 as illegal. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It would suffice to state that by the impugned proceedings, respondent No.1 in exercise of his powers under Rule 5(2) of the Rules granted prior clearance to respondent No.4 for establishing a Bar and Restaurant in the area in which the petitioner is running his A- 4 shop. Rule 5(2) of the Rules with its proviso reads as under: “The Commissioner having due regard to requirement and other factors as he deems fit, may grant a prior clearance in Form-2A to such of the applicants covered under sub-rule (1). Provided that the grant of prior clearance shall not confer any right on the applicant for grant of licence in Form-2B. The holder shall not claim for any compensation or loss in case licence in Form-2B is not granted.” The above-reproduced proviso envisaged that mere grant of prior clearance does not confer any right for granting license in Form 2-B. Under Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 5 of the Rules, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, after making such enquiry as he may think necessary, to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant and verifying the particulars furnished in the application should examine the suitability of the premises for granting Bar and forward the same to respondent No.2 and under Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 5 of the Rules, respondent No.2 after causing such enquiry as he may deem fit grant the license. It is, therefore, clear from this rule that by obtaining prior clearance, respondent No.4 cannot establish and run her bar, unless and until respondent No.2 grants a license after following the procedure under Sub-Rules 5 and 6. Therefore, irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner has locus to question grant of license in favour of respondent No.4 or not, none of his rights, if any, at this stage have been violated by the grant of prior clearance in favour of respondent No.4. As license has not been granted in favour of respondent No.4, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance and claim that any of his rights are affected. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is wholly premature. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed on that ground without going into the merits of the case. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise his objections before respondent No.2, if he is so advised, on the application filed by respondent No.4 for grant of license in Form-2B. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.9053 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st MARCH, 2008 kvni