IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1359 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27.08.2008 in W.V.M.P.NO.2210 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.NO.19120 of 2008 in W.P.NO.14797 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy, S/o. Venkatasubba Reddy, R/o. Door No. 27-1-1084/B, Balajinagar, Nellore. ...APPELLANT AND 1 Smt. Noone Krishnaveni, W/o. N. Sainadh, R/o. H.No. 16-3- 281, Ganji Khana, Ramalingapuram, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 The Government of Anhra Pradesh,Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Proh. & Excise, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad. 4 The Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Nellore, Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1359 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents. At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The appellant, the fourth respondent in Writ Petition No.14797 of 2008 ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein, ﬁled the appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in making interim order dated 10.07.2008 as absolute. Earlier, interim direction was granted suspending the impugned proceedings dated 02.07.2008 at the instance of the ﬁrst respondent. Though an application was ﬁled by the appellant herein for vacating the same, the same was rejected. Hence, the appeal. Considering the submissions made on either sides and on perusal of the material available on record, the main question that arises for consideration is as to the interpretation of Rule 6, vis-à-vis, Rule 9 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005, pertaining to grant of license for establishing Bar and Restaurant. Learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision in Mandakini Restaurant and Bar v. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise[1] and found favour with the ﬁrst respondent and did not ﬁnd any reason to vacate the interim order. It is this preposition, which is being aggrieved by the appellant. During the course of the arguments, it is pointed out that on the very same question, another appeal is already pending before this Court. Be that as it may, this appeal arises out of an interlocutory order. We are not going to probe into the matter, which necessarily has to be gone into in the Writ Petition. Admittedly, the appellant is not running the Bar since August 2008 onwards. In the circumstances, we deem it more appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition at the earliest. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed and oﬃce is directed to post the Writ Petition along with Writ Appeal No.567 of 2008 “For Hearing” subject to “Part Heard”. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 7th November 2008 RRB [1] 2008 (4) ALD 188