IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10434 of 2009 Between: G. Brahmananda Reddy S/o. G. Rami Reddy Owner of M/s. Eswar Wines License No.69/208-10, Allagadda, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 4 The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Allagadda, Kurnool District. 5 M. Bhushanam, S/o. Jhan R/o. L.M. Compound, Allagadda, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4:AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a direction order or a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring i. the inaction of the 1st Respondent in considering the application made by the petitioner through the 5th Respondent Corporation vide their Letter No. SO/NLR/ Lease/ dt. 24-4-2006 and ii. the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing demand in Letter No. AB/Supdt/L - 4 / 6304 dated 17-6-06, together with all his subsequent demands and purported notices of eviction vide letters dated 19-7-06, 4-10-06, 30-12-06, 22-1-08, 4-3-08, 17- 05-08 and 4-8-08. as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 301 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the demand notices of the 2nd Respondent And consequently direct the 1st Respondent to consider the application made by the petitioner through the 5th Respondent Corporation by taking into consideration the uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner for over 35 years.” Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the writ petition in terms of letter, dated 16.06.2009 filed by him in the Registry. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as withdrawn, interim order, dated 08.06.2009 is vacated and WPMP.No.13413 of 2009 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th JUNE, 2009. kvni