HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31028 of 2011 Date: 24.11.2011 Between: Dasari Venkateswarlu ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District and six others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 6: AGP for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who appears to be licensee for sale of toddy at Bheemavaram Village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, ﬁled this Writ Petition on mere apprehension that the Excise department may grant tree for tapper license (for short ‘TFT license’) for Bheemavaram Village in favour of respondent No.7. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.7 is not eligible for being granted TFT license mainly on two grounds, viz., that he is 70 years old, who is not capable of climbing up trees and that, he is already a member of Ponguru T.T.C.S. The petitioner averred that he has submitted a representation to respondent No.2 raising objections. He apprehends that without considering his objections, respondent No.2 may grant TFT license to respondent No.7. In my opinion, no Writ Petition ﬁled without cause of action can be entertained. Except raising an apprehension, the petitioner failed to substantiate his case that respondent No.2 is likely to grant TFT license to respondent No.7, without considering his objections. Respondent No.2 being the authority vested with the power to grant TFT licenses is expected to consider the objections, if any, received from the petitioner before deciding to grant the TFT license in favour of respondent No.7. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any justiﬁcation for the petitioner to ﬁle this Writ Petition at this stage. If respondent No.2 grants license in favour of respondent No.7, the petitioner is entitled to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.38496 of 2011 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th November 2011 DR