THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26591 of 2011 Dated 28th November, 2011 Between: S.Mallesh …Petitioner And The Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Ranga Reddy District at Nampally, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.S.Madhava Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to run business by opening counter No.10 in the premises shown in licence bearing No.215, dated 04.10.2007. The petitioner is a TFT licensee having been granted a licence on 04.10.2007 for sale of toddy at housing bearing No.1-1/1 of Jillelaguda Village (Survey No.158), Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner alleged that along with him, 20 persons were also granted licences and that except six to eight licence holders, all others agreed to sell jointly the toddy through single counter and that he is one such licensee, who did not want to conduct business jointly. He alleged that at the instance of majority licensees, respondent No.2 has been interfering with his business of running counter at the above-mentioned premises. No counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing for the respondents, on instructions, stated that since the petitioner is authorised to sell toddy at the above-mentioned premises, which is indicated in the licence, the respondents have not been interfering with his business premises. One person by name, Sanam Yadaiah, and another ﬁled W.P.M.P.No.35130 of 2011 seeking permission of the Court to come on record as respondents. They have stated in their aﬃdavit that a rental agreement was entered into between them and the owner of the premises, that while granting lease of the premises to them, the landlord has not given any consent for leasing out the same to the petitioner, that when the agreement relating to lease of the premises is with them, they have raised an objection to the petitioner running the TFT counter from the premises which is taken on lease by them. In my opinion, if there is any dispute between the petitioner and the proposed respondents relating to the right of use of the premises, that gives rise to a separate cause of action for the proposed respondents and they are entitled to avail common law remedies to settle such disputes. So long as the premises is governed by the licence issued to the petitioner, he is entitled to run the counter from the said premises. Obviously, in realisation of this position, the respondents have come out with the version that they are not objecting to or interfering with the right of the petitioner to run the counter from the above- mentioned premises. In the premises as above, the writ petition is disposed of by placing on record the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the respondents have not been interfering with the petitioner’s right to run the TFT counter from the premises as mentioned in the licence, dated 04.01.2007. If the proposed respondents dispute the right of the petitioner, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.32823 and 35130 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th November, 2011 VGB