IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26916 of 2009 Between: Yadlapalli Radha Rukmini Devi … Petitioner And The Tobacco Board, (Ministry of Commerce- Government of India), Guntur & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Lakshmi Manohar for Sri G. Anandam Counsel for respondent Nos.1&2: Sri S. Srinivas Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri M. Venkatnarayana This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26916 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in considering the request of respondent No.3 for renewal of his licence relating to Tobacco barn as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K. Lakshmi Manohar representing Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M. Venkatnarayana for respondent No.3. The petitioner pleaded that respondent No.3 is a registered grower and licence holder of property bearing patta No.605 comprised in Sy.No.24/1-1 admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents together with Tobacco barn situated therein. The petitioner claimed that he purchased the entire property along with barn for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,95,000/- under sale deed dated 26.04.2009. When respondent No.1 issued notification dated 19.08.2009 inviting applications for registration of Virginia Tobacco Grower/Cultivator for grant of licence to operate Tobacco barn covering Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Maharastra States, the petitioner approached office of respondent No.2 for submission of duly filled application form. As advised, the petitioner sent the application through registered post on 24.08.2009, which was received by the office of respondent No.2 on 25.08.2009. The petitioner further averred that when he went to the office of respondent No.2 after a week of receipt of his application by respondent No.2’s office, he was informed that his application will be considered later. As no order was passed, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.18746 of 2009, wherein a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 inter alia stating that respondent No.3 has made an application for renewal of licence and that accordingly his licence was renewed. The petitioner therefore filed the present writ petition questioning the said renewal. In the counter affidavit filed by the Liaison Officer of respondent No.1, he inter alia stated that respondent No.3 submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 07.09.2009, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has forged his signatures and created an agreement to the effect that he is purported to have purchased the property from respondent No.3 and that the said respondent has never sold the property and barn to the petitioner and that in view of the said stand taken by respondent No.3 and as per the policy of the Tobacco Board, respondent No.3 alone is entitled for renewal of licence, as he is the existing registered grower on the rolls of Tobacco Board. It was further averred that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach a civil Court and seek relief against respondent No.3. In the light of the facts noted above and as there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 on the issue of alleged sale of the land along with barn, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate upon the said disputed question of fact. Unless the petitioner succeeds in getting his right declared through a competent civil Court, respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot act upon the purported sale agreement on which the petitioner has placed reliance for transfer of the Tobacco barn. As rightly pleaded by respondent Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.3, being the registered licensee, is entitled for renewal of licence until such time as the competent Court declares that he has sold away his interest in the land and the barn. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court of law for declaration of his right. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.35047 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.03.2010 ES Note:- Issue CC in one week. ES