IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) 26/02/2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 4252 of 2010 Between: E. Narasimhulu Goud S/o Late E.Seshanna Goud and three others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Kurnool, Kurnool District and eight others. .....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records leading upto and inclusive of the order dated 2.2.2010 in O.A.No. 532 of 2010 passed by the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and set aside the same and grant interim order as prayed for in the O.A,by suspending proceedings in Rc.No. A1/1865/2000, dated 30.01.2010 of the 1st respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.” This writ petition is misconceived. The Tribunal thought it proper to order notice before admission while refusing to grant interim order after considering the case record. Denial of an interim order, at the threshold will not entitle the petitioners, as a matter of right, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate that notice be given to the opposite side so as to invite a counter for adjudication of the matter on merits. The Supreme Court in L. CHANDRA KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA1, inter alia, held that in the first instance, the Tribunal shall adjudicate the matter and decide the rights of the parties on merits. Mere ordering of notice in an interlocutory petition does not amount to rendering of a decision on merits. In the present case, the Tribunal has neither committed a jurisdictional error nor exceeded its limits. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, merely declined to exercise its jurisdiction in granting an interim order while ordering notice to the opposite party. The Tribunal, in our opinion, did rightly so and there is no jurisdictional error much less any illegality or irregularity in the order. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to exercise our certiorari jurisdiction in the instant case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioners join duty within the stipulated time, the Tribunal is directed to give appropriate interim direction to protect the interest of the petitioners. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:26.02.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies 1 AIR 1997 SC 1125