IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.960 of 2009 Between: B. Nageswara Reddy S/o. Seshi Reddy R/o. Flat No.107, Model Towers, Gayatri Estate, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy R/o. Flat No.503, Teja Deluxe Apartments, Kurnool, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any action on the complaint filed by the petitioner dt. 29.12.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith take action on the representation dt. 29.12.2008 for closure of the Shop M/s. Green Park Bar, situated at Kurnool, Kurnool District, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.U.M.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.960 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any action on the representation dated 29.12.2008 submitted by the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is the licence holder of a retail wine shop namely Green Park Bar situated at Kurnool and he subleased the said shop to him and his co-partners. It is his case that he was made to believe that the 3rd respondent obtained permission for such sublease, but subsequently he came to know that no such permission was obtained, and further the 3rd respondent and the other partners have colluded with each other and they are not paying his share amount, and, therefore, he submitted a representation dated 29.12.2008 to the 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool, bringing to his notice the aforesaid facts and requesting him to take necessary action. Complaining that no action has been taken on the said representation, the present writ petition is filed. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the officials of Prohibition and Excise Department, have no power or jurisdiction to settle the disputes between the petitioner and his co-partners in connection with their business. The remedy available to the petitioner in this regard is to approach the competent Civil Court and the respondents 1 and 2 are not empowered to resolve such disputes. There are no merits in the writ petition to grant any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 27th January, 2009 IBL