The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.14983 of 2010 Date: 30-08-2010 Between: M/s.Kumar Wines ..... Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T.C.D.Sekhar for Mr.P.Venugopal Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4, in passing orders on the petitioner’s representations, dated 27-01-2009 and 22- 06-2010, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is an existing A-4 licensee. It has, earlier, filed W.P.No.3387 of 2009 questioning the action of the Excise Department in permitting another A-4 licensee viz., M/s.Teja Wines to shift to the premises situated in Survey No.21/8A, Ward No.8 of Uthukota-Satyavedu Road, Dasukuppam Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide Order, dated 01-06-2009, wherein, while holding that the Excise Department cannot be prevented from exercising its power of permitting shifting in accordance with the extant Rules, respondent No.2 was directed to dispose of the petitioner’s representations on the proposed location in the light of Rule 27 of the A.P.Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005. Evidently, the period of license held by respondent No.5 has subsequently expired and fresh auctions were held. Before a license was granted in favour of the successful bidder, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition anticipating that the fresh licensee may be permitted to locate the shop in the same premises, which was the subject matter of W.P.No.3387 of 2009. At the hearing, Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, learned Counsel representing Sri P.Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, a fresh license was granted in favour of one K.Harinath and that he is permitted to locate his shop at the same premises. In my opinion, without challenging the permission granted in favour of the new licensee, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. In view of arising of a fresh cause of action on account of a fresh permission having been granted in favour of K.Harinath, the cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, however, liberty is given to the petitioner to avail a fresh remedy. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.18882 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 30th August, 2010 lur