IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23701 of 2011 Between: Sri J. Kamalakar Reddy … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Excise), Department of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Padma Shanaranappa Counsel for respondents 1-5: AGP for Prohibition & Excise This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23701 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in registering a case in C.O.R.No.277/2011-12, dated 03.08.2011, against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction for quashing of the criminal case. The petitioner is the licensee of M/s. Amrutha Restaurant and Bar. Disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.9 and 10 on the other in relation to the said bar and restaurant persist and according to the petitioner, O.S.No.132 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, filed by him against respondent Nos.9 and 10 for injunction is pending. On the complaint of respondent Nos.9 and 10, a criminal case has been registered under Sections 36(c), 37 and 41 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short, “the Act”) read with Rule 23 of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, “the Rules”) against the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that registration of the said case is illegal, as the same was done in collusion with respondent Nos.9 and 10. The petitioner also alleged that the bar and restaurant was locked depriving him of the right to run the same. Even though no counter affidavit is filed, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, on instructions, submitted, at the hearing, that the petitioner’s licence has not been suspended or cancelled so far and that he is being permitted to run the bar and restaurant. Learned counsel for the petitioner also conceded to the extent that his client is now being permitted to run the bar and restaurant after the present Writ Petition is filed. In my opinion, whether the criminal case registered against the bar and restaurant is sustainable or not needs to be investigated and the same can be adjudicated by the competent criminal Court. At this stage, it is neither possible nor appropriate for this Court to interfere with the said criminal case. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as of now no proceedings for suspension or cancellation of petitioner’s licence have been initiated and that if and when such proceedings are contemplated, the competent authority will follow the procedure prescribed under the extant provisions of the Act and the Rules. While placing on record, the above noted submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of declining to interfere with the pending criminal proceedings. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.29037 and 29038 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 31.10.2011 ES