IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1695 of 2008 Between: M/s. New Amrutha Bar & Restaurant, H.No.4-1-938, First Floor, Tilakroad, Abids, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Proprietor Smt.Y.Koteswari, W/o.Y.Radhakrishna Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Taskforce, Central Zone, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.KAMALAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s application for grant of renewal of bar license. This Court, while issuing notice before admission, passed the following order on 01.02.2008. “It is submitted that the petitioner has applied for renewal of licence on 22.12.2006, under the Hyderabad City Police Act, to run Bar and Restaurant in the name and style, M/s.New Amrutha Bar and Restaurant, in the premises bearing No.4-1-938, First Floor, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. However, the request of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 21.08.2008 keeping open for the petitioner to apply afresh by providing the required parking space, as per the norms notified by the Government. It is further submitted that subsequently, the petitioner made representation on 5-12-2007 and further representation on 3-1- 2008, stating that sufficient parking space is already provided as per the norms of the State Government. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to consider the applications of the petitioner dated 5-12-2007 and 3- 1-2008 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from today.” At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 28.02.2008, respondent No.1 issued a memo wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner’s request will be examined on showing exclusive parking space for its establishment. In view of the said memo, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner either to comply with the requirement in memo, dated 28.02.2008 or question the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.2098 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th MARCH, 2008 kvni