IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14036 of 2008 Between: Sri Pydimamba Mahila Samajam, rep.by its President Smt.P.Sarojini,W/o.Sri Appa Rao R/o.35-1/25,Rama Murthy Panthulupeta Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Prohibition and Excise Department, Rep.by its Commissioner, Nampally,Hyderabad 2 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Visakhapatnam District,Visakhapatnam 3 Sri Bora Nooka Raju S/o.Appala Naidu R/o.Paradesi Palem,Madhurawada Visakhapatnam District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in including Ward No.43 (Old 39) in the Notification No.36-A dated 6.6.2008 f o r seling liquor by shop at Ward No.43 Ramamurthy Panthulupeta,Visakhapatnam As illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents not to issue licence for selling liquor by shop at Ward No.43 Ramamurthy Panthulupeta,Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) By way of this public interest litigation, the petitioner-Samajam has challenged the inclusion of Ward No. 43 (old 39) in the Notification No. 36-A, dated 6-6-2008. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Samajam has submitted that Ward No.43 ought not to have been included in the notification because by virtue of the instructions issued in the notification, licence for selling liquor would be given in the said ward. We do not find any substance in the argument, because there is no legal ground whereby the Government could be restrained from inclusion of a particular ward in a notification so as to have a liquor shop. As there is no specific reason, we do not find any substance in the petition. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 2nd July, 2008. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR