HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 18962 OF 2011 . DATED 7th July, 2011 BETWEEN M/s. Kishan Restaurant & Bar Rep. by its Licencee K.Sanjeev Kumar …Petitioner And The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of AP, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 18962 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is a Bar and Restaurant, situated at premises bearing D.No.1-6-66/B, Epur Bus-stand area, Chelamabai, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District. Its licence in Form 2-B issued under Rule 4 of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licenses of Selling by Bar and conditions of licence ) Rules 2005 is renewed from time to time and is subsisting till 30.06.2011. It is the grievance of the petitioner that exactly opposite to the petitioner-Bar & Restaurant, the eighth respondent is proposing to establish a school in the name and style of Telangana Sri Chaitanya E-Techno School. Knowing the same, the petitioner has submitted representations to respondents 1 to 5 on 03.06.2011, 4.6.2011, 7.6.2011, and 25.6.2011 and the same are said to be pending consideration. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that the official respondents 1 to 5 have neither passed any order nor initiated any action on the aforesaid representations. The representations said to have been filed by the petitioner on 3.6.2011, 4.6.2011, 7.6.2011 and 25.06.2011 are still pending consideration before the respondents. Without giving sufficient breathing time to the respondent authorities to take decision on the aforesaid representations, the petitioner has approached this Court. Trite to state, when representations are filed showing sufficient and reasonable cause/grievance, sufficient time need be given to the respondents to proceed to take decision. The petitioner has to pursue them for a reasonable time. Any directions given at this stage certainly amounts to premature The issue thus for any action before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage of the proceeding when the respondent authorities is yet to take a decision can be disposed of by an order recording that the application before this Court is premature and that the petitioner can approach the respondent authorities to pursue its representations. If any such attempt is made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall be obliged to proceed in accordance with law. The petition before this Court for a writ in the nature of mandamus is thus premature.. The Writ Petition is thus misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 7th July, 2011. Msnro