HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27762 of 2011 Date : 27-10-2011 Between: Nalluri Narayana Rao .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri S. Gopal Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri T. Niranjan Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who is an existing licencee for running a Bar and Restaurant in premises bearing D.No.7-120/2, Bypass road, Mangamur Donka, Ongole, Prakasam District, filed this Writ Petition with the grievance that his two representations dated 22-9-2011 and 3-10-2011 filed raising objections to the proposed shifting of the liquor shop of respondent No.3 are not being considered. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, the learned counsel representing respondent No.3. The petitioner is running a Bar and Restaurant in the above mentioned premises. Respondent No.3 is an A-4 licencee who was running his liquor shop at Shop No.3, Ward No.25, Kurnool Road, Ongole. On the ground that in the road widening his shop is affected, respondent No.3 made an application before respondent No.1 for permission to shift the liquor shop to a place near the Bypass road. Anticipating that respondent No.1 may grant permission to respondent No.3, despite objections raised by him through representations made to respondent No.1, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent No.3, submitted that the petitioner has no locus to question the proposed shifting of the shop by respondent No.3. The learned counsel submitted that separate sets of statutory provisions govern the Bar and Restaurants and A- 4 licences and that the petitioner who is running the Bar and Restaurant cannot raise his objections for shifting of the liquor shop by respondent No.3. They have relied upon Rule 29 of A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short “the Rules”) and submitted that under the said provision, shifting of the liquor shop is permitted for valid reasons within the notified area and subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the application of respondent No.3 is pending with respondent No.1. In my opinion, the Writ Petition is premature as the same is filed based on the apprehension that respondent No.1 may permit shifting of the shop by respondent No.3 without considering the petitioner’s representations. Since the petitioner is stated to have raised objections, respondent No.1 is directed to consider those objections while taking a decision on the application of respondent No.3 and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner and respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.34242/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 27-10-2011 AM