IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15763 of 2008 Between: Kanna Wines, rep. by its Proprietor, M.Raja Gopal Reddy S/o. Lakshmi Reddy Kondru Village, Pendlimarri Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa district. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa Kadapa district. 3 The Deputy Commissioner ( Proh & Excise), Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4 The Municipal Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa, Kadapa district. 5 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Kadapa Kadapa District. 6 V.Subba Reddy S/o. Konda Reddy Satyaveedu, Chittoor, Chittoor District, R/o. D.No. 9/716, Chilakalabaavi Street, Kadapa City & District. 7 V.Konda Reddy S/o. Pulla Reddy R/o. D.No. 9/716, Chilakalabaavi Street, Kadapa City & District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR.S.I.NEWTON Counsel for Respondent Nos.6 and 7: ----- The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5, in interfering with the petitioner’s business at the instance of respondent No.6, as arbitrary and illegal. Though serious allegations are made against respondent No.6, who is a Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Satyaveedu, for the present I am not inclined to deal with the same in detail in view of the counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.5 wherein he stated as under: “It is true that the 6th respondent requested respondents 1, 3 and 5 by giving written representations and also requested through phone to cancel the licence granted in favour of the petitioner as the licenced premises of the petitioner is only one house away from the premises belonging to him. I submit the objections of the 6th respondent were taken into consideration but however no action was taken against the petitioner either for cancellation of licence or shifting the licenced premises since the licenced premises is in conformity with Rule 27 of the Shop Rules.” While respondent No.6 has not filed any counter- affidavit denying the allegations contained in the Writ Petition, there is no reason to disbelieve the contents of the counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.5 that respondent No.6 approached respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 to cancel the petitioner’s licence. Though this conduct of respondent No.6 deserves to be viewed seriosuly, this Court takes a lenient view against him for the present with a caution to him not to repeat such conduct in future. In view of the categorical statement made by respondent No.5 that the location of the petitioner-shop is not in violation of Rule 27 of the extant Rules, the Writ Petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.20421 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 23rd June, 2009 LUR