IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 24723 of 2002 BETWEEN: 1 G. Swami Goud S/o. Muthaiah, R/o. 13-55, Lothukunta, Secunderabad. 2 P. Kumar Goud S/o. Babaiah, R/o.14-31/1, Lothukunta, Secunderabad. 3 A. Srisailam Goud S/o. Chittaiah, R/o.1-13-53, Lothukunta, Secunderabad. 4 A. Gopal Goud, S/o. Laxmaiah, R/o.1-13-54, Lothukunta, Secunderabad. 5 P. Saibaba Goud, S/o. Babaiah, R/o.14-31/1, Lothukunta, Secunderabad. 6 G. Praveen Kumar Goud, S/o. Babaiah, R/o.14-21/2, Lothukunta, Secunderabad. 7 V. Narsin Rao Goud S/o. Balraj, R/o.1-14-21/6, Lothukunta, Secunderabad. 8 A.V. Naveen Babu Goud S/o. Venkatesh, R/o.1--3-56, Lothukunta, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & excise Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 Prohibition & Excise Inspector S.H.O., Malkajigiri, R.R. District. 4 Government of A.P. Rep by its Honourable Minister for Prohibition & Excise, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or Direction declaring i) Rule-24 of A.P. Excise (arrack and Toddy License General Conditions) Rules, 1969 as illegal, unconstitutional for being capricious and vague and meaningless and as violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India, and ii) the action of the 1st Respondent herein in suspending the Licenses of the petitioners, in proceedings vide Cr.No.E6/12706/2002 dt.16.11.2002 on the basis of Inspection and seizure of samples from Counter 1 belonging to another license holder, as illegal arbitrary against the principles of the natural justice and also in violative of the fundamentals rights guaranteed under the constitution of India, and iii) the Action of he Respondent in taking coercive steps in pursuance of Crime no.87/02-03 dt.28.9.2002 of prohibition and excise inspector SHO., Malkajigiri as arbitrary high handed and consequently set aside the proceedings in Cr.No.E6/12706/2002 dt.16.11.2002 of the 1st Respondent as well as the Crime No.87/2-03 dt.28.9.2002 of the prohibition and excise inspector , S.H.O, Malakajigiri iv) and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER: None appears for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the licensees of the toddy shop TFT Lothukunta of Malkajgiri Mandal for the excise year 2002 - 2007 i.e. 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2007. Their licences have been suspended by the licensing authority/Prohibition and Excise Superintendent by the impugned order dated 16.11.2002. Questioning the said suspension pending enquiry, petitioners filed this writ petition and obtained interim order of status quo. 3. Counter has been filed stating that insofar as the question of challenging Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 as illegal and unconstitutional is concerned, it is stated that the said Rules have been repealed and new comprehensive rules have been framed in the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence to sell toddy, conditions of licence and tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.1228 Revenue (Ex-II) dated 19.09.2007. As per the orders of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.1229 dated 19.09.2007 the existing Rules relating to toddy including the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules 1969 and the Andhra Pradesh Excise (tapping of trees and toddy shop special conditions of licences) Rules, 1969 will be seized to be in force with effect from 01.10.2007 and that the licences issued to the Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society’s and Tree for Tappers Scheme under the aforesaid rules pursuant to the new policy guidelines issued from time to time shall seize to be in force with effect from 01.10.2007. Therefore, under the new Rules 2007 the petitioners have not made any applications and in fact, some other applicants made applications and licenses have been granted to eligible tappers and the petitioners have no grievance and they have not questioned the licences granted in favour of eligible persons. 4. In view of aforesaid counter and in view of the fact that the licences of the petitioners have expired by 31.03.2007, I am of the opinion that nothing survives in this writ petition for adjudication. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 23, 2008 DSK