THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITIION No. 18776 of 2009 Date: 08.09.2009 Between: M/s. Hayagreeva Bio Organics Pvt Ltd. ..Petitioner and The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture. ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITIION No. 18789 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in processing the application of the fifth respondent for shifting of his wine shop from China Miram Village to ward No.22, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is the licensee for sale of Indian made Foreign Liquor, vide Licence bearing No.111/2008-10-BVRM dated 29.06.2008 and he has been doing the said business in the shop situated at premises bearing No.21-11-54, Rest House Road, ward No.28, Bhimavaram I Town, West Godavari District, under the name and style “Vamsi Krishna Wines” from 01.07.2008. The period of licence is for two years, which means up to 30.06.2010. While so, the fifth respondent, who is also doing similar business from 01.07.2008 at China Miram Village, made an application for shifting of his shop to ward No.22. Pending consideration of the same, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dated 10.08.2009 to the second respondent - the Commission for Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, objecting the request of the fifth respondent. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that having regard to the fact that no shops were notified at ward Nos.22 and 27 as per G.O.Ms.No.719 dated 05.06.2009, he obtained licence for doing the said business at ward No.28 and that if the fifth respondent is permitted to shift his ship to ward No.22, his business will be affected to huge extent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that as of now there is no order passed by the competent authority permitting shifting of the shop of the fifth respondent to ward No.22. When such application was made, there is no reason to interdict the proceedings at this stage. In as much as the petitioner already filed his objections dated 10.08.2009 before the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent - competent authority to consider the objections dated 10.08.2009 filed by the petitioner before passing appropriate orders on the application, if any, made by the fifth respondent requesting for shifting of his shop from China Miram Village to ward No.22, in accordance with law. 6. With the limited direction as indicated above, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage. However, it is made clear that the second respondent may consider the said request with reference to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and the relevant Rules made thereunder. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 08th September, 2009 GHN